USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Hate crimes and jury decision making

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Hate crimes and jury decision making an exploratory study of underlying motivations of how mock jurors are influenced by extralegal factors
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Mudimu, Vimbai
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Covariates
Perceptions
Adjudication
Sentencing
Stereotypes
Dissertations, Academic -- Criminology -- Masters -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Summary:
ABSTRACT: Statistics show that hate crimes continue to occur in United States, inciting fear and intimidation in minority communities (Petrosino, 1999; Torres, 1999; Saucier et al., 2006; Nolan et al., 2002; Jacobs & Potter, 1997). Although hate crime legislation has been passed, very little research has assessed what impact it has. This is particularly true for jury decision making. The aim of this study was to examine the main effects of type of crime (hate versus non-hate), offender-victim racial composition (African-American/Caucasian), and the interaction between these two variables on ratings of guilt likelihood, deserved punishment, and sentence recommendations after controlling for offender dangerousness, witness credibility, and hate motivation. The first hypothesis assumed that differences in guilt and hate crime adjudications would emerge across the experimental conditions.The second hypothesis indicated that dangerousness, and hate motivation would exert significant influence on deserved punishment and sentence recommendations; while witness credibility would exert influence on guilt adjudication. The third and fourth hypothesis stated that there would be no main effects of type of crime (hate versus non-hate) and offender-victim racial composition (African-American/Caucasian) on ratings of guilt likelihood, deserved punishment, and sentence recommendations. The fifth hypothesis suggested that there would be interaction effects between type of crime and offender-victim racial composition on ratings of guilt likelihood, deserved punishment, and recommended sentence after controlling for dangerousness, hate motivation, and witness credibility.Results indicated that there were no main effects for type of crime, offender-victim racial composition, or the interaction between these two variables on ratings of guilt likelihood, deserved punishment, and sentence recommendations. There was a significant interaction effect on ratings of guilt likelihood for aggravated battery; however this interaction disappeared after controlling for offender dangerousness, witness credibility, and hate motivation. Dangerousness and hate motivation appeared to exert influence on the study outcomes. Overall, the findings were not congruent with prior research. It appeared that the covarying factors seemed to exert significant influence on the study outcomes; thus further study is warranted.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2008.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Vimbai Mudimu.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 93 pages.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 002001135
oclc - 319620619
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0002602
usfldc handle - e14.2602
System ID:
SFS0026919:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Hate Crimes and Jury Decision Making: An Exploratory Study of Underlying Motivations of How Mock Jurors are Influenced by Extralegal Factors by Vimbai Mudimu A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Criminology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Shayne Jones, Ph.D. Christopher Sullivan, Ph.D. Norman Poythress, Ph.D. Date of Approval: July 18, 2008 Keywords: covariates, perceptions, adjudication, sentencing, stereotypes Copyright 2008, Vimbai Mudimu

PAGE 2

Acknowledgements I would like to take this oppor tunity to thank several indi viduals for helping me in my journey here at the Universi ty of South Florida. First and foremost, I wish to thank my committee members. Dr. Shayne Jones, my major professor, I admire and respect you beyond what words could describe. I thank you for your wisdom and understanding during this very rigorous process. Wit hout your guidance, patience, and extensive knowledge, this thesis would not have been completed. Additionally, Drs. Christopher Sullivan and Norman Poythress have graciously provided me with an endless amount of knowledge. The confidence and intelligence you both exude can be quite intimidating, but ultimately has been a great resource fo r me this past year. Thank you both for your time and attention. Lastly, but certainly not leas t I owe my family and friends so much for always being there to keep me motivated a nd push me forward. My mother, my brother, sister, cousins, and friends, I appreciate the continuous support you all have provided me up to this point. I would like to give a special thank you to my mother, Dr. C. L. Dhliwayo who is my inspiration, my role mode l, my support, my best friend. Words will never describe how much your support has helped me through this proc ess. None of this would have been possible without you. I woul d also like to thank God for making all of this possible and delivering every time it was promised. God knows I’ve had faced countless personal and professi onal challenges and I have had many moments; so I am very grateful for everything that everyone ha s done for me. I look forward to the next phase in my life as I prepare for the PhD Program.

PAGE 3

i Table of Contents List of Tables iii List of Figures iv Abstract v Chapter 1 Introduction 1 Chapter 2 Overview of Hate Crimes 5 Creation of Legislati on of Hate Crimes 5 Hate Crime Procedures 7 Hate Crime Definitions 10 Social Factors that Influence Hate Crimes 12 Prevalence of Hate Crimes 15 Controversies Related to Hate Crim e Reporting, Laws, and Legislation 18 Summary 20 Chapter 3 Overview of Race and Jury Research 21 Introduction to Race and Jury Research 21 In-Group/Out-Group Favoritis m and Racial Salience 22 Race and Jury Decision Making Summary 27 Hate Crime and Jury Decision Making Research 28 Existing Flaws in Hate Crime and Jury Decision Making Research 33 Jury Decision Making in the Context of Hate Crimes Summary 34 Chapter 4 Methods 36 Participants and Procedure 36 Study Materials 37 Measures of Independent and Dependent Variables 38 Hypotheses 41 Design and Statistical Analysis 43 Chapter 5 Results 45 Supplemental Analyses 69 Chapter 6 Discussion and Conclusion 72 References 87

PAGE 4

ii List of Tables Table 1: Correlations 48 Table 2: Chi-Square (Guilty vs. Not Guilty) 50 Table 3: Chi-Square (Hate Crime: yes vs. no) 51 Table 4: Descriptive Statis tics for Aggravated Battery 53 Table 5: 2 x 2 Factorial MANOVA for Adjudication for Aggravated Battery 54 Table 6: 2 x 2 Factor ial ANOVA for Sentencing fo r Aggravated Battery 57 Table 7: 2 x 2 Factoria l MANCOVA for Adjudication for Aggravated Battery 60 Table 8: 2 x 2 Factorial ANCOVA for Sentencing for Aggravated Battery 61 Table 9: Descriptive Statistics for Robbery 62 Table 10: 2 x 2 Factorial MANOVA for Adjudication for Robbery 63 Table 11: 2 x 2 Factorial ANOVA for Sentencing for Robbery 64 Table 12: 2 x 2 Factorial MANCOV A for Adjudication for Robbery 67 Table 13: 2 x 2 Factorial ANCOVA for Sentencing for Robbery 68 Table 14: Pairwise Group Comparisons of Hate Motivation Across Conditions 71

PAGE 5

iii List of Figures Figure 1: Estimated Marginal Means of Likelihood for Aggravated Battery 56

PAGE 6

iv Hate Crimes and Jury Decision Making: An Exploratory Study of Underlying Motivations of How Mock Jurors Ar e Influenced by Ex tralegal Factors Vimbai Mudimu ABSTRACT Statistics show that hate cr imes continue to occur in United States, inciting fear and intimidation in minority communities (P etrosino, 1999; Torres, 1999; Saucier et al., 2006; Nolan et al., 2002; Jacobs & Potter, 1997). Although hate crime legislation has been passed, very little research has assessed wh at impact it has. This is particularly true for jury decision making. The aim of this st udy was to examine the main effects of type of crime (hate versus non-hate), offe nder-victim racial composition (AfricanAmerican/Caucasian), and the interaction between these two variables on ratings of guilt likelihood, deserved punishment, and sentence recommendations after controlling for offender dangerousness, witness credibility, and hate motivation. The first hypothesis assumed that differences in guilt and hate crime adjudications w ould emerge across the experimental conditions. The second hypothesi s indicated that dangerousness, and hate motivation would exert significant influen ce on deserved punishment and sentence recommendations; while witness credibility would exert influence on guilt adjudication. The third and fourth hypothesis stated that there would be no main effects of type of crime (hate versus non-hate) and offende r-victim racial composition (AfricanAmerican/Caucasian) on ratings of guilt likelihood, deserved punishment, and sentence

PAGE 7

v recommendations. The fifth hypothesis suggested that there would be interaction effects between type of crime and offender-victim racial composition on ratings of guilt likelihood, deserved punishment, and reco mmended sentence afte r controlling for dangerousness, hate motivation, and witness cred ibility. Results indicated that there were no main effects for type of crime, offender-v ictim racial composition, or the interaction between these two variables on ratings of guilt likelihood, deserved punishment, and sentence recommendations. There was a significant interaction effect on ratings of guilt likelihood for aggravated battery ; however this interaction disappeared after controlling for offender dangerousness, witness credibili ty, and hate motivati on. Dangerousness and hate motivation appeared to exert influence on the study outcomes. Overall, the findings were not congruent with prior research. It appeared that th e covarying factors seemed to exert significant influence on the study out comes; thus further study is warranted.

PAGE 8

1 Chapter One Introduction In 2006, rising racial tensions in Jena, Louisiana lead to a big media story now known as “The Jena Six Story” (Democracy Now, 2007). It began when a student asked for permission to sit under a tree commonly known as the ‘white tree’ (a tree where Caucasian students gathered). The follo wing day, students observed three nooses hanging from the tree. The responsible Caucas ian students were suspended for three days after school administrators dete rmined that the act was just a prank. Subsequent to the incident, six African-American students att acked one Caucasian student. The Caucasian victim was sent to hospital for medical clear ance, released the same day, and seen at a school function that evening. The six Afri can-American students responsible for the attack were arrested and charged with atte mpted second-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. The charges would leave the students (ranging from 15 to 17 years of age) facing between twenty and one hundred years in jail. The Jena Six story has captured national media attention and cause d tremendous racial tension (Democracy Now, 2007). Is this incident an example of racial unfairness in the current judicial system? Should the incident where Caucas ian students hung nooses be classified as a hate crime? Or should the attack be prosecute d as a hate crime? Or should both incidents be considered as hate crimes? All thes e questions remain unanswered as the legal process continues.

PAGE 9

2 Racially motivated crimes (such as the Je na Six Story) have occurred in great magnitude in American history (Petrosi no, 1999; Perlmutter, 1991; Levin & McDevitt 1993). It is well documented th at prejudice and hate have been an issue in the United States for centuries (Franklin & Moss, 1994; Fredrickson, 2002; Apel, 2004; Harris, 1984) and remains pervasive in today’s soci ety (Feagin & Sikes, 1994; Bonilla-Silva, 2001). Discriminatory and violent victimizati on against African-Americans dates back to slavery (Franklin & Moss, 1994; Berlin, 2003; Hacker, 1996). African-Americans were viewed as inferior, uncivilize d, and heathens, views that pr ovided rationalizations for using them as slaves (Petrosino, 1999). In the slavery era, A frican-Americans were dehumanized as they were stripped of their rights, mandated to perform labor, and forced to live in treacherous conditions (Franklin & Moss, 1994). Crimin al acts, such as assault, torture, kidnapping, rape, and psychological abuse occurred during this period (Petrosino, 1999). The post-emancipation period was characterized as the “Jim Crow Era,” a time in history when numerous lynchings occurre d (Soule 1992; Tolnay & Beck, 1992; Beck & Tolnay, 1990). During this era, the “Jim Crow Laws” mandated ra cial segregation by prohibiting African-Americans from using the same facilities as Caucasians, such as schools, transportation, and housing. Additi onally, African-Americans were prohibited from voting and seeking economic opportunities (for example, business ownership). The laws also allowed private acts of mass racial violence, such as lynchings (Franklin & Moss, 1994). Lynching was described as mu rdering an accused person without due process of the law (Waldrep, 2000; Petrosi no, 1999). Lynchings caused discouragement from overcoming poverty, owning real prope rty, employment, pursuing education, and

PAGE 10

3 voting (Washington, 1899; Aldrich, 1979; Torres, 1999). African-Americans were essentially treated as second-class citizens (Franklin & Moss, 1994). Subsequent to the “Jim Crow Era” was the civil rights moveme nt where African-Americans fought against racial discrimination and demanded freedom, respect, dignity, and economic and social equality (Lewis, 2000; Williams, 1987; McWh orter 2000). Although African-Americans gained civil rights in Americ an society, they continued to experience discrimination (Feagin & Sikes, 1994; Bonilla-Silva, 2001). Historically, murder, assault, rape, and th eft were categorized as criminal acts; however the racial motivation behind thos e criminal acts was not (Petrosino, 1999). Thus, while crimes motivated by racial hatred occurred in the past, the criminalization of hate has only recently occurred (Petrosino, 1999). In the 1980s, laws were enacted and definitions established to address hate cr imes in the United States (Petrosino, 1999; Lawrence, 1999). Hate crimes were defined as bias motivated criminal acts against a person or property (Petrosino, 1999; Torres, 199 9; Saucier et al., 2006; Jacobs & Potter, 1997; Craig 1999; Nolan et al. 2002 ; Marcus-Newhall et al., 2002). The enactment of hate crime laws set the stage for cultural and structural changes as there was an observable shift from the slavery and post-emanci pation era to the postcivil rights movement era, a shift depicted by criminalizing racially motivated criminal acts (Nolan et al., 2002). The passage of hate crime laws demonstrated recognition that hate crimes were uniquely different from or dinary crimes as they caused irreparable damage to victims and communities, therefor e warranting distinction. Although the shift in history has been marked by laws that manda te criminalizing hate crimes, surprisingly, very little attention in the social sciences ha s been directed in examining hate crimes and

PAGE 11

4 jury decision making. Previous researchers ha ve focused on race as an extralegal factor (i.e., as an aspect unrelated to the evidence presented in a legal case) associated with influencing jury decision making. However, a literature review revealed only four research studies explicitly focusing on ju rors’ perceptions of hate crimes. The present exploratory study seeks to fill the gaps in the existing literature by examining jurors’ perceptions of hate crimes to evaluate whether extralegal factors are taken into account in juror decision maki ng. The aim is to establish whether the independent effects of race or type of crim e (hate crime vs. non-hate) influences mock juror’s decision making in guilt adjudication and sentencing recommendations. The study will answer three specifi c questions. Are there racial differences in adjudication and sentencing in hate crime and non-hat e crime conditions? Does race impact the perception of crime severity according to th e type of crime (hate crime or non-hate crime)? Is the perception of a hate cr ime dependent on the victim’s race? The next chapter will examine the definiti ons, laws, prevalence, and social factors that influence hate crimes. Following this in-depth discussion, the third chapter will elaborate on extralegal factors and outline pr evious research conducted in race and jury decision making. Additionally, the chapter will re view the scant research specific to hate crimes and jury decision making. The fourth chapter will review the methods, the fifth chapter will outline the results, and finally the sixth chapter will summarize the discussion and conclusion.

PAGE 12

5 Chapter 2 Overview of Hate Crimes Creation of Legislation for Hate Crimes Some have suggested that the motivation to enact hate crime laws was encouraged by triggering events and movements in the 1970s and 1980s, including the women’s rights, gay rights, and civil rights movement s (Gerstenfeld, 2003; Cogen 2002; Nolan et al., 2002). The Hate Crime Statistics Act (H CSA; 1990) was the first Federal hate crime law enacted to explicitly deal with racially motivated crimes (Torres, 1999; Saucier et al., 2006; Craig, 1999; Craig & Waldo, 1996). The HCSA required the attorney general to institute procedures and colle ct data regarding crimes su ch as murder, non-negligent manslaughter, intimidation, simple assault, aggr avated assault, forcible rape, arson, and property crimes (destruction, damage, or va ndalism of property) that showed clear evidence of motivation based on race, ethnicity, sexual orienta tion or religion (Nolan et al., 2002). After the HCSA was establishe d, the FBI created a program called the National Crime Data Collection program to co llect data on hate crimes. This program was an adjunct to the existing Uniform Crim e Reporting Program (Nolan et al., 2002). Data are collected on the pattern s, frequency, location, and extent of hate crimes in order to assist law enforcement, the legislature a nd communities to increase awareness on hate crimes (Jacobs & Potter, 1997).

PAGE 13

6 The Hate Crime Statistics Act was followed by the Hate Crime Sentencing Enhancement Act (HCSEA) in 1994, which modi fied the US Sentencing Guidelines. This new law indicated that individuals who committed a hate crime would receive a harsher sentence of three offens e levels higher than ordinary crimes, such as robbery or assault (Torres, 1999; Saucier et al., 2006; Craig, 1999). That is, the sentence is automatically increased by a factor of three times. For example, a felony of the fourth degree is sentenced as a felony of the first de gree. The HCSEA specifically states that, If the finder of fact at trial or, in the case of a guilty plea,….the court at sentencing determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally selected any victim or any property as object of the offe nse because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation for any person, an a dditional 3-level enhancement from [the base level offense] will apply (W isconsin v. Mitchell, 1993). One such example of sentencing enhancement occurred in Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993) where it was established that if the crime was motivat ed by prejudice because of the person’s race, ancestry, national origin, disa bility, sexual orientation, religion or color and committed against a person or property, the sentence was tripled. Florida has instituted the sentencing enhancement law whereby punishments are enhanced for any felony or misdemeanor crime that is bias-mo tivated. After the es tablishment of hate crime laws, several court hearings occurre d that impacted how hate crimes were prosecuted in a courtroom. The following sect ion explores several court decisions that lead to judicial procedures for hate crimes.

PAGE 14

7 Hate Crime Procedures Over the last several years, some court decisions have impacted judicial procedures for hate crimes. In Jones v. United States (1999) the defendant was sentenced to 25 years in prison for carjacking when the normal sentence was 10 years for that crime. The outcome of this court hearing le d to the conclusion that the sixth amendment to a defendant’s right to a jury trial wa s violated because the judge increased the sentence. Consequently, sentence enhancements were only permitted after a jury had found beyond a reasonable doubt th at the evidence presented in the case warranted increased sentencing (526 U.S. 227, 119 S.Ct 1215,1999). This decision also resulted from the Almendarez-Torres v. United States (1998) case that had allowed increased sentencing based on prior convictions (523 U.S. 224, 118 S. Ct. 1219, 1998). In Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000), a court ruling was overturned af ter a judge increased sentencing on a defendant convicted of several weapon offe nses against an African-American family because the judge found that this crime was mo tivated by race. When this sentence was reversed, Justice Stevens indica ted that other than prior c onvictions, all facts must be presented to a jury first and proved beyond a reasonable doubt before sentence enhancements can occur (530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 2000). Some resistance by the courts was demonstrated during the Harris v. United States (2002) case that argued that a jury does not need to try a case presenting facts that mandate minimum sentencing. While cases presen ted to the jury have an element of an aggravated crime that would allow an exte nsion of the maximum sentencing guidelines, this was not the circumstance for cases that require minimum sentencing. Judges could increase the sentence beyond the mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines with or

PAGE 15

8 without the jury’s verdict. However, Justic e Stevens argued that gr eater punishment than is necessary would result if mandatory mini mum sentences were increased (536 U.S. 545, 122 S.Ct. 2406, 2002). In Blakey v. Washington (2004), the sentencing schemes involved crimes that were categorized and assigned penalties. Fo r instance, Class B fe lonies were assigned maximum sentences of 10 years. However, specific crimes had smaller ‘standard ranges’; for instance kidnappi ng was classified as a Cla ss B felony, however, it only carried a sentence range of 49 to 53 months. In this case, the sentence was enhanced because the judge found that the defendant ac ted by ‘deliberate cruelty’; as such he received a 90 month sentence after being c onvicted of kidnapping. Justice Scalia found this case unconstitutional because it exceeded the allowed statutory maximum of 53 months based on the facts presented in th e jury’s verdict (542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 2004). A similar issue was noted in United States v. Booker (2005), where the sentence was increased beyond the allowed mandatory maximums according to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines based on judicial facts th at were not presented to the jury. Justice Breyer concluded that Guideline ranges should be advisory to allow the courts to impose sentences at the statutory maximums. This m eant that juries could authorize sentences up to the statutory maximum amounts (543 U.S. 220, 125 S.CT. 738, 2005). In conclusion, the results of these co urt decisions mandated that sentencing enhancements be proven to a jury in all ju risdictions. Additionally, sentencing guidelines could be increased to the st atutory maximums to allow j udges to decrease sentences as necessary and ensure that all jurisdictions remained within their maximum sentencing enhancement guidelines. Therefore, the histor y of these decisions allowed the Supreme

PAGE 16

9 Court to delineate clear proce dural guidelines to address th e judicial system for hate crimes. In the state of Florida, jurors are give n specific instructions for aggravation of a crime by selecting a victim based on prejud ice according to Florida Statute § 775.085. Instructions inform jurors to find the defenda nt guilty of the hate crime if they find the defendant accountable for the crime and believe that beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant selected the victim based on prejudi ce. If jurors believ e that the defendant committed the crime, but they not believe beyon d a reasonable doubt that the intention of the crime was motivated by race, they are asked to find the defendant guilty of the crime only (775.085, Florida Statutes, Supp. 1998). After the jury finds that the defendants’ crime was motivated by an aggravating factor, the judge proceeds with sentenci ng according to the appropriate sentencing guidelines. In Florida, a ccording to Florida Statute Florida Statute § 775.085 (2007), judges follow the specific sentencing guidelines. Crimes are reclassi fied as Florida law allows for sentencing enhancement for racially motivated criminal acts. For instance, a misdemeanor of the second degree is reclassifi ed to a misdemeanor of the first degree, a misdemeanor of the first degree is reclassifi ed to a felony of the third degree, and a felony of the third degree is reclassified to a felony of the second degree (775.085, Florida Statutes, Supp. 1998), and so on. Overall, the state of Florida provides cl ear guidelines in acco rdance with federal guidelines for jurors hearing hate crimes a nd judges imposing sentences. Since I have discussed laws and procedural definitions for hate crimes, an exploration of hate crime definitions shall follow. Some researchers have identified multiple existing variations of

PAGE 17

10 hate crime definitions. The following section will describe the U.S. Supreme Court’s definition of a hate crime and the other definitions offered. Hate Crime Definitions While researchers have devised a number of similar definitions of a hate crime, the U.S. Supreme Court has clarified the defi nition of hate crimes by providing explicit language in the form of legisl ation. Specifically, the definitio n offered in the Hate Crime Statistics Act is “a criminal offense committed against a person or property, which is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against race, religion, ethnic/national origin, or se xual orientation group” (28 U.S.C. 534 [Supp. IV 1996]). According to the FBI guidelines, the definition of bias is similar to that of prejudice, where bias is defined as ‘a preformed negative opinion or attitude toward a group of persons based on their race, re ligion, ethnicity/national orig in, or sexual orientation’ (Jacobs & Potter, 1997). However, definitions of hate crimes vary across jurisdictions (Torres, 1999; Saucier et al., 2006; Petrosi no, 1999). In some jurisdictions, the hate crime statutes include religion, race, color, a nd national origin as their legal definition of hate crimes, while other jurisdictions incor porated sexual orientat ion, physical handicap, and gender (Petrosino, 1999). Sa ucier et al. (2006) indicat ed that criminal acts are determined and classified as hate crimes according to the words used at the time of the incident. For example, a suspect who has co mmitted an assault may have used the words ‘you are not welcome in our neighborhood’. Such a statement may be interpreted as racially prejudicial, which would result in th e reclassification of th e assault to a hate crime. However, interpretati on is subject to the judge’s decision of whether the words used during the assault are indi cative of a hate crime. Jac obs and Potter (1997) identify

PAGE 18

11 that the term ‘hate crime’ is not congruent with its actual de finition. The argument is that while there is some overlap between hate a nd prejudice, the actual term ‘hate crime’ refers to criminal behavior that is motivat ed by prejudice, not ha te (Jacobs & Potter, 1997). Prejudice is defined as either being a subconscious or conscious negative attitude or opinion about a specific class or gr oup of people (Jacobs & Potter, 1997). Nolan et al. (2002) indicated that hate crimes are defi ned as a criminal offense committed as a result of extreme prejudice against an individual or a group of people. Craig (1999) defined hate crimes as the in tentional selection of a victim based on prejudice or bias associated with actual or as sumed status of the victim and performing an illegal act such as harassment, intimidation, ve rbal or physical assault, property damage, and murder. The victim’s status may be ba sed on membership of a racial, ethnic, and religious minority group, or being physically challenged, or type of sexual orientation. Torres (1999) defined hate crimes as crimes incited by hatred against the person because of the person’s race, national origin, ethnicit y, disability, religion, a nd sexual orientation. Petrosino (1999) defined hate crimes as th e majority group victimizing minority group members because of their racial and ethnic id entity. Other definitions of hate crimes include ‘words or actions inte nded to harm or intimidate an individual because of her or his membership in a minority group’ (Herek, 1989). Despite the various definitions proposed, al l hate crimes have certain elements. They each note a criminal offense, and they al l suggest prejudice as a precipitating factor. Accordingly, this study focused on racially motivated criminal acts. Some researchers have proposed several different societal dyna mics that provoke the occurrence of hate

PAGE 19

12 crimes. The following section explores seve ral different theories suggesting why hate crimes occur. Social Factors That Might Promote an Environment Conducive to Hate Crimes Several different factors have been o ffered as possible explanations for hate crimes against African-Americans. Green et al. (1998) postulated th at a change in the demographic composition of an area is one possible precipitator to hate crimes. Specifically, they found that the beginning stages of integration resulted in racial tensions that led to racially motivated crimes. Sp ecifically, racial tensions arose when ethnic minorities, such as African-Americans and Latinos, moved into predominantly Caucasian neighborhoods. The tension was associated with Caucasians defending what they identified as their territory. It is import ant to note, however, th e tensions were most notable in the beginning stages of demographic change, and subsided thereafter. Greene et al. (1998) suggested that this was becau se those opposed to integration fled their neighborhoods and those who were amenable to the changes remained in the community. This suggests that there may be something specific to individua l attitudes and beliefs that are important in understanding racial tension, and not simply changes in the demographic composition. Overall, racial tensions decline as comm unities became racially diverse, resulting in a decreased incidence of racially motivat ed crimes. Although this suggestion has been made by Green et al., (1998), other research ers have found that African-Americans are still the most segregated mi nority group from Caucasians (Quillian & Pager, 2001). Caucasians prefer to live in neighborhoods with a very sm all percentage of AfricanAmericans. African-American neighbor hoods with young African-American men are

PAGE 20

13 perceived as having more crimes, thus fu eling racially segr egated neighborhoods (Quillian & Pager, 2001). Results from one study found that neighborhoods with a high percentage of young African-American men we re associated with high crime rates (Quillian & Pager, 2001). Thus, Caucasians tend to form this stereotype and are averse to African-American neighborhoods with a hi gh percentage of young African-American men because of the perceived high crime rates, thereby reinforcing continued segregation (Quillian & Pager, 2001). The social dominance theory is an alte rnative explanation fo r the occurrence of hate crimes. The social dominance theory assumes that certain groups in society have more power than other groups. These dominant groups attempt to maintain their social status, prefer a hierarchical arrangement, and have a propensity to display racial biases against the minority groups. The socially dominant group tends to display discrimination against minority groups and show favorit ism towards their own in-group members (Kemmelmeier, 2005). Another factor hypothesized to influence ha te crimes is stereotyping. Theories on racial stereotypes have indicated that stereo types are motivated from the emotional need of one racial group to justify their position, relative to another racial group (Quillian & Pager, 2001). Stereotypes of Af rican-Americans have derived fr om the historical view of African-Americans as genetically inferior (Hurwitz & Peffley, 1997). The modern stereotype of African-Americans is that Afri can-Americans are more violent, aggressive, and likely to engage in criminal activity th an any other ethnic minor ity group (Hurwitz & Peffley, 1997; Quillian & Pager, 2001; Peffley et al., 1997). Stereotypes and beliefs about specific ethnic minorities are shaped fr om media influences. The media has played

PAGE 21

14 an instrumental role in portraying African -Americans as the viol ent underclass (Hurwitz & Peffley, 1997). The media more frequently portrays African-Americans as violent criminals as they are seen in mug shots, handcuffs, and in physical custody (Hurwitz & Peffley, 1997). When a crime is violent in nature, Caucasians tend to find AfricanAmericans guilty and give more severe punishments because of the stereotype that African-Americans are aggressive, violent, and hostile (Hurwitz & Peffley, 1997). Moreover, researchers have found that ra cial prejudice is most pronounced against African-Americans in comparison to other et hnic minorities, such as Latinos (Barkan & Cohn, 2005). Consequently, Caucasians that ar e more racially prej udiced and believe that African Americans are violent are more likely to want to support crime control policies that include harsher punishments for cr iminals. As a result of this stereotype, African-Americans are generally more likely to be convicted of crimes in the criminal justice system (Austin & Erwin, 2000; Clear, 19 94; Bureau of Justic e Statistics, 2007; Gerstenfeld, 2003). Several other suggestions for the occurrenc e of hate crimes are related to the social climate, which includes unemployment, poor financial conditions, advertisements that are racially biased, radi o talk show discussions, one’s own experiences with AfricanAmericans, or the use of racially criticizi ng language (Torres, 1999). These broad social conditions may also influence other factors th at are related to the occurrence of hate crimes. For instance, individuals may blam e others when they have experienced a negative event in their lives, such as losing a job. This is a phenomenon known as scapegoating. This could poten tially result in the perpetrator seeking a victim of a

PAGE 22

15 minority group which the perpetrator seeks to ‘blame’, thus resulting in a hate crime (Torres, 1999). Overall, several different researchers have suggested multiple social factors that promote an atmosphere of racial tension, pot entially resulting in hate crimes. The following section will explore to what magnitude hate crimes occur in the United States. Prevalence of Hate Crimes While Torres (1999) identified that hate cr imes have substantially increased since 1990, Jacobs and Potter (1997) argued that hate crimes occurred at a greater frequency in the past during the Jim Crow lynching era. The difference from the past to the recent years is distinguished by a society that has b ecome sensitive to prejudice and is motivated to criminalize prejudicial acts (Jacobs & Potte r, 1997). The Hate Cr ime Statistics Act of 1990 provided guidelines for recording and documenting hate crimes. The HCSA mandated that law enforcement agencies gather data related to hate crime statistics in their respective jurisdictions to report to th e Hate Crime Reporting Unit. The statistics derived as a result of the Hate Crime Statis tics Act have revealed that hate crimes continue to occur in the United States. As delineated above, hate crimes are “normal” crimes that have the additional element of prejudice. As such, any crime – violent or property – can be classified as a hate crime. Thus, crimes such as murder or vandalism that have the underlying motivation of prejudice can be classified as a hate crime. Hate crimes generally tend to be brutal and more frequently occur against individuals as opposed to property (Saucier et al., 2006). Hate crimes th at occur against individuals in clude murder, rape, aggravated assaults, simple assaults, criminal intimida tion, and robbery (Office of Attorney General

PAGE 23

16 Bob Butterworth, 1995; Nolan et al., 2002; Saucier et al., 2006; Green et al., 1998; Torres, 1999). Nolan et al. ( 2002) reported that in the 1999 ha te crime statistics provided by the FBI annual crime report, 66 % percent of hate crimes we re categorized as assaults and intimidations reported against persons (Nolan et al., 2002). Data from the 2002 Uniform Crime Reports provided similar in formation. Approximately 65% of hate crimes were against persons versus appr oximately 35% that were property crimes (Saucier et al., 2006). Researchers have identified that Africa n-Americans and Hispanics constitute a high proportion of victims of hate crimes in comparison to the majority groups, with African-Americans being the minority group more frequently targeted for hate crimes (Green et al., 1998; Saucier et al., 2006). Researchers reviewed the 1996 statistics and the 1999 FBI’s annual hate crime report and f ound that anti-race was the most frequent form of bias, where 61% of hate crimes were motivated by racial prejudice (Nolan et al., 2002; Torres, 1999). Statistics show that over 50% of hate crimes are committed against African-Americans and 18% are anti-White (Jacobs & Potter, 1997; Torres, 1999; Nolan et al., 2002; Saucier et al., 2006). Additio nally, 68% of perpetrators are Caucasian, reflecting that Caucasians are more freque ntly committing hate crimes (Nolan et al., 2002; Jacobs & Potter, 1997). Moreover, an analysis of data between the years of 1992 and 1996 revealed that there was a 52% in crease in hate crimes against AfricanAmericans (Torres, 1999). Thus, it is necessa ry to study hate crimes, particularly among African-Americans, as statistic s reveal that African-Ameri cans are more frequently the target of hate crimes than other racial groups and hate crimes continue to increase (Jacobs & Potter, 1997; Saucier et al., 2006; Green et al., 1998; Nolan et al., 2002; Torres, 1999).

PAGE 24

17 The current study was conducted in Tampa, Fl orida, thus is it necessary to explore hate crime statistics specific to this state. The statistics on hate crimes in Florida are congruent with the statistics reported across the United St ates. Information from the Attorney General of Florida indicated that the most commonly reported motivation for hate crimes was race (2006). The 2006 hate cr ime report in Florida i ndicated that 55% of hate crimes in Florida were racially motivat ed hate crimes. Other hate crimes reported were crimes against religion, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Additionally, the hate crimes report showed that hate crimes mo re frequently occurred against persons. Approximately 66% of hate crimes occurred against persons and the remaining 34% were property crimes. The hate crimes against persons and property in cluded acts such as forcible sex offenses, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, arson, simple assault, intimidation, and vandalism. Forty-four perc ent of the hate crimes reported in 2006 were aggravated assault, thus showing that th is was the most common hate crime committed that year. In Hillsborough County, there were two different agencies reporting hate crimes, including the Hillsborough County Sh eriff’s Office and the Tampa Police Department. The Hillsborough County Sheriff’s office reported five aggravated assaults and three intimidations. The Tampa Poli ce Department reporte d three aggravated assaults, eleven simple assaults, one in timidation, and two vandalisms (Office of Attorney Bill McCollum, 2006). Overall, the st atistics show that hate crimes continue to occur, particularly against African-American s. Despite the relatively high numbers of hate crimes, they are likely to be underestima tes as researchers have suggested that often times hate crimes go unreported (McDevitt et al. 2000). Although these data indicate hate crimes are, indeed, a persistent problem several researchers have presented issues

PAGE 25

18 with hate crime reporting and other disagreements related to hate crime concepts. The following section focuses on this. Controversies Related to Hate Crime Reporting, Laws, and Legislation While the Hate Crime Statistics Act has established a systematic way of collecting data, some researchers have noted that there is ambiguity in the guidelines. Researchers postulate that accurate data collection is compromised because of this ambiguity (Jacobs & Potter, 1997). One argument indicates that overall crim e data collection efforts are inadequate as agencies responsible for re porting hate crime statistics often do not accurately report this data. T hus the statistics recorded do not accurately reflect the incidence of hate crimes. McDevitt et al. (2000) identified that hate crimes are underreported, representing fewer hate crimes th an what is actually occurring in today’s society (McDevitt et al., 2000; Cogan, 2002). Although some agencies do not report hate crime statistics, researchers have noted that the hate crime reporting system is relatively new and continues to improve (Jacobs & Potter, 1997). Some researchers have suggested there is no need to have explicit legislation for hate crimes. Torres (1999) highlights that so me studies indicate that hate crime reporting has not contributed towards the betterment of society in terms of improving law enforcement practices or better understanding crime, prejudice, or prejudice-motivated crimes. Researchers found that some people be lieve that hate crime laws are a violation of the 1st Amendment because ‘a crime is a crim e’. That is, the crime committed is already being punished, and ther e is no need to respond to it differently based on the offender’s motivation (Saucier et al., 2006; Gerstenfeld, 20 03; Jacobs & Potter, 1997; Torres, 1999). The belief is that hate crim e laws are essentially punishing the individual

PAGE 26

19 for inappropriate thinking because of thei r opinions, thoughts, and values (Freeman 1992/93; Gellman 1992/93; Jacobs & Potter, 1997). Another criticism of hate crime legislati on involves sentencing. Some researchers believe that believe that enact ing harsher sentences for hate crimes may actually affect minority groups more adversely if a minor ity group member commits a hate crime against a member of the majority group (e.g., an African-American offender committing a crime against a Caucasian individual; Jacobs & Potter, 1997). Research has shown a trend whereby minority groups receive harsher sentences than members of the majority groups; specifically African-Americans are f ound guilty more frequently and receive harsher sentences in comparison to Caucasians (Saucier et al., 2006; Gerstenfeld, 2003). Consequently, the fear is that a similar puni shment pattern will emerge with respect to hate crimes. Finally, Jacobs & Potter (1997) believe th at the enactment of hate crimes laws politicizes the crime problem and divides social groups instead of bringing them together. The argument is such that hate crime laws wi ll compel society to focus on racial aspects associated with the crime instead of focusi ng on the crime committed. This will result in increased racial tensions and societies will experience division and polarization. However, this line of reasoning appears to be flawed in some respects. For example, statistics show that hate crimes continue to occur despite efforts of integration and equality, which is an issue that needs to be addressed. Simply discussing and increasing awareness regarding hate crimes does not polar ize social groups. In addition to hate crimes stemming from racial strife, the act of the hate crime further divides social groups because the hate crime is a public display of r acial contention, which intimidates an entire

PAGE 27

20 community. Hate crimes cause distress to the minority groups that experience prejudice secondary to the hate crime. Thus, ensuri ng conviction of hate crime perpetrators and increasing sentences will act as a deterrent eff ect to lower the incidence of hate crimes in today’s society (Sauci er et al., 2006). Overall, several individuals have identif ied issues related to hate crime data collection, laws, and legislation. Nonethele ss, the laws are still in place today and agencies continue to collect data on hate crimes in their respective jurisdictions. Essentially, some researchers find that while hate crimes may be a simple notion to understand, it is a very difficult concept to en act in society today because of the many different challenges faced by hate crimes (Saucier et al. 2006). Summary The previous review discussed the definitions, prevalence, possible sources, and controversies of hate crimes. All of this information suggests that hate crimes are a serious problem in the United States that needs to be addressed. Further, as noted above, the purpose of hate crime legislation was to enact tougher penalties to deter such behavior. However, much of this is premis ed on juries perceiving hate crimes as more deplorable than normal crimes. In the follo wing chapter, the scant research on jury decision making in hate crime cases is discusse d to ascertain whether jurors’ behavior is consistent with legislative intent.

PAGE 28

21 Chapter Three Overview of Race and Jury Research Introduction to Race and Jury Research While the current legal system assumes th at jurors are supposed to focus only on the facts of the case, some research suggests th at extralegal indicator s – such as race, sex, and attractiveness of the defenda nt – are considered in jury decisions (Hymes et al., 1993; Mazzella & Feingold, 1994; Zebrowitz & Mc Donald, 1991). Extralegal factors are defined as any characteristic th at is taken into considerati on by jurors that influence or bias the juror’s decision about adjudication or sentencing the defe ndant beyond the facts of the case (Reskin & Visher 1986; Lizott e, 1978; Hagan, 1974). Although there are several extralegal factors documented that influence juror’s decision making, race is the most researched extralegal factor (Marcus-Newhall et al., 2002). Although the influence of race on jury d ecision making is an important area of inquiry, the knowledge garnered from the exis ting literature seems to have provided more questions than answers (Sommers & Ellswo rth, 2000). Of the few studies conducted, most have yielded inconsistent results about juror’s perceptions of guilty verdicts and sentencing related to race. For instance, some studies have found bias against defendants; specifically, African -Americans are more likely to be arrested, convicted, and receive harsher sentences (Sommers & Ells worth, 2000; Marcus-Newhall et al., 2002; Kemmelmeier, 2005). Yet, it is important to consider not just the race of the defendant,

PAGE 29

22 but also the juror. Here, too, there is inc onsistent evidence. While some studies have found juror biases against defendants of the same race, others have found no differences or inconsistent data (Sommers & E llsworth, 2000; Marcus-N ewhall et al., 2002; Kemmelmeier, 2005). In addition, researchers have found anti-White biases for highstatus crimes, like embezzlement, in which Cau casians are more likely to be found guilty. However, for low-status crimes like robbery and assault, anti-minority biases occur (Kemmelmeier, 2005). Moreover, few studies consider the per ceptions of AfricanAmerican jurors (Sommers & Ellsworth, 2000). This is important because research indicates that in-group bias might exist. Th at is, African-American mock jurors may be more lenient towards African-American defenda nts than Caucasian mock jurors (Abshire & Bornstein, 2003). In-Group versus Out-Group Favoritism and Raci al Salience in Jury Decision Making Several different theories and factors that influence jury decision making have been suggested. Racial salience is a phenomen on that has been studied in the race and jury literature. Studies have found that wh en Caucasian jurors are reminded of racial prejudice, they are more likely to pay atten tion to legally relevant information when the defendant is African-American. Thus, Ca ucasian jurors are more likely to overcompensate because of the motivation to appear non-prejudicial (Sommers & Ellsworth, 2000; Sargent & Bradfield, 2004; Kemmelmeier, 2005). However when race is less salient, racial prejudice is more often expressed (Sommers & Ellsworth, 2000). For example, Sargent and Bradfield (2004) conducted two studies composed of all Caucasian participants recruited from pub lic places, such as shopping malls and the airport. In this study, part icipants read a case where e ither a Caucasian or African-

PAGE 30

23 American man was charged with armed robbery, and the alibi offered was either strong or weak. There were two a dditional conditions presented in the study. The first was where mock jurors were not motivated to pay attention to the detail s of the case by being informed that the study was a pilot study in preparation for future research and they would receive $5 for participation; this condition was named the ‘low motivation’ condition. The second condition motivated mock jurors to pay attention to the case details, and was labeled the ‘high motivation’ condition (mock jurors were informed that case was a real case and the re sults of the study would impact future jury instruction; additionally mock jurors would only be compensated $5 if their responses were congruent with the outcome of the actual case). The researchers found that when participants were highly motivated to pay atte ntion to the trial details, race did not have any effect. However, in the low motivation condition, race played an effect on the mock jurors’ likelihood of finding the defendant gui lty based on the alibi presented (Sargent & Bradfield, 2004). Specifically, the mock jurors were likely to find the defendant guilty if the defendant was African-American and had a weak alibi. However, there was no effect for Caucasian defendants on alibi st rength with guilt adj udication (Sargent & Bradfield, 2004). In the second study conducted by Sargen t and Bradfield (2004), the conditions were similar to the first study. The only difference was that the alibi strength manipulation was replaced by the district attorn ey’s effectiveness of cross examination of the defense witness. The results showed a th ree-way interaction effect such that in the low motivation condition where participants we re sensitive to the cross-examination if the defendant was African-American. There was no race effect found in the high

PAGE 31

24 motivation condition related to cross-examin ation (Sargent & Bradfield, 2004). In summary, the impact of legally relevant information was more important when the defendant was African-American and the motivation was low. Another factor that influences ju ry decision making is the psychological phenomenon of in-group versus out-group favoritism. In-group bias is defined as bias whereby members of a particular racial gr oup tend to show favoritism for their own members of that particular ra cial group. Out-group bias is described as preference towards non-members of that particular ra cial group (Sommers & Ellsworth, 2000). One may propose that the ‘Black Sheep Effect’ has occurred when out-group bias occurs. The ‘Black Sheep Effect’ is defined as “in-group targets are rated more negatively than outgroup targets when a target’s features ar e unambiguously negative” (Khan & Lambert, 1998). This theory has garnered some cred ibility in psychological research. For instance, it has been found that people te nd to be more punitive to in-group members when an in-group member commits a crim e (Prooijen, 2006; Marc us-Newhall et al., 2002). It is considered a ne gative attribute when an individual commits a crime. The more severe the crime, the more negative th e crime is presumed. In-group members are motivated to maintain a positive social status and avoid negativity. Thus, when an ingroup member commits a crime, other in-gr oup members tend to avoid any association with that particular in-group criminal. Th erefore, in-group members tend to be more punitive towards members of their own group who commit crimes in efforts to maintain a positive social status and disassociate with negativity. Conversely, other studies have shown that some people display ‘in-group’ favoritism to criminal suspects. Generally, the studies that found in-group favoritism

PAGE 32

25 occurred in situations where the guilt of the defendant was disputable (Prooijen, 2006). While individuals may display in-group favoriti sm in certain situations, on the other hand, racial salience mitigates th is; when racial issues are made salient, Caucasian mock jurors tend to show less favor to their in-g roup member. Caucasian mock jurors were more likely to adjudicate the suspect guilty in racially salient conditions. When the situation was vague, jurors tended to exhibi t in-group favoritism (Marcus-Newhall et al., 2002). Other studies have found that jurors were more likely to find the in-group defendant guilty when the evidence was str ong. However, they were likely to find the out-group defendant guilty when the evidence was weak (Prooijen, 2006). Kemmelmeier (2005) found that individuals of an oppressed group generally presented leniency towards their own in-group members and showed hars her reactions to the out-group/racially dominant group. Another study was conducted to exam ine the in-group/out-group phenomenon. Prooijen (2006) conducted four experiments designed to examine in-group versus outgroup bias. The results of one study indicated that pa rticipants displaye d more retributive affect towards in-group members when guilt wa s certain and less retributive affect to outgroup members. Participants were more likely to seek justice and be more punitive to ingroup members versus out-group members when guilt was certain. However, they showed less retributive aff ect to in-group members when the guilt was uncertain and more retributive affect to out-group members when the guilt was uncertain. While there was no guilt probability main effect found in the first experiment, a main effect was found in the second experiment; the research er attributed this finding to the higher severity of the crime in the second experime nt (Prooijen, 2006). Based on the findings of

PAGE 33

26 these two studies, it was conc luded that guilt probability is a moderating factor of the influence of social classification on an indi vidual’s punitive emotions, that is, their ratings of anger and hostility. Other studies have shown that there is in-group bias when that group has high status and power. However, there tends to be out-group favoritism when that particular group is of lower status and power (Mar cus-Newhall et al., 2002). Sommers and Ellsworth (2000) conducted two st udies aimed at elucidating th ese effects. In the first study, they provided trial summaries and ques tions to college students; race was made salient in the trial summaries. The study showed that African-American mock jurors were more likely to convict Caucasian defe ndants. Caucasian defendants did not show any preference for convicting either the Afri can-American or Caucasian defendant. This result is consistent with the idea that Afri can-American jurors are less likely to convict their in-group members. It is also congrue nt with the social dominance theory. This theory assumes that individuals of a lower soci al class tend to distru st higher institutions, such as the judicial system as they suspect these higher entities of discriminating against minority groups (Kemmelmeier, 2005). On the other hand, the social dominance theo ry suggests that i ndividuals in higher social classes are more likely to have faith in higher institutions, and as such perceive judicial systems are fair and just (K emmelmeier, 2005). Consequently, AfricanAmericans that already believe that justice inst itutions are unfair are less likely to convict their in-group member. In a study of so cial dominance, Caucasian participants (undergraduates) in a mock-juror situation we re presented with an assault case and the race of the defendant was manipulated. The results indicated that individuals in the

PAGE 34

27 social dominant group were likely to gi ve guilty judgments and high sentence recommendations as they exhibited anti-bl ack biases. However, the individuals who were low in social dominance showed pr o-Black biases (Ke mmelmeier, 2005). In the second study, Sommers & Ellsworth (2000) recruited pa rticipants at an airport and randomly assigned individuals to one of four versions of the trial summary. Some of the conditions in the study were race -salient conditions, wh ile other conditions were non-race salient. In the race salient c onditions, African-American mock jurors were more likely to exhibit same-race leniency, wh ile Caucasian mock jurors appeared nonprejudicial. In the non-r ace salient condition, both African-American and Caucasian mock jurors demonstrated in-group favor itism where they f ound out-group members guilty and gave harsher sentences (Sommers & Ellsworth, 2000). Race and Jury Decision Making Summary Overall, researchers have identified race as an influential extralegal factor. The research on race and jury decision making prim arily focuses on racial salience, and how it affects in-group and out-group bias. Prio r research has also demonstrated that individuals exhibited in-group and out-group bias in certain circumstances. Researchers found that in racially salient circumstances, Ca ucasian participants ge nerally paid special attention to case details in attempts to app ear non-prejudicial, while African-American mock jurors demonstrated in-group favoritism. However, in non-race salient conditions, Caucasian and African-American mock jurors exhibited in-group bias. Overall, AfricanAmerican mock jurors tended to exhibit in-group favoritism when the defendant was African-American in criminal cases despite racial salience. These factors may be particularly important in hate crimes, which are inherently race salient. However, very

PAGE 35

28 little is known about the speci fic influence of hate crimes on mock juror decision making and what factors are related to jurors’ percep tions of hate crimes. The following section describes the scant research in this area and highlights the need for additional research. Hate Crime and Jury Decision Making Research Hate crimes and jury decision making is an important area to study because hate crimes produce a very unique dynamic. Although it is importan t to understand hate crime and jury decision making because hate cr imes continue to occur, surprisingly there is very little research conducted in this area. In f act, a literature search revealed only four studies on this topic. This section will expl ore the results of the four existing research studies. Marcus-Newhall et al. (2002) conducted three separate studies involving hate crimes and jury decision making. The study pa rticipants (all Caucasian college students) read a paragraph about a shoo ting that took place between tw o motorists; racial slurs were mentioned in this scenario. In the first experiment, the re searchers looked at the effect of the race of the victim (African-A merican, Caucasian), race of the perpetrator (African-American, Caucasian), and political orientation (self-identified conservative, liberal). The study found that when the hate crime was committed by a Caucasian against an African-American victim, participants were more likely to give a guilty adjudication and a longer sentence than in the scenario in which an African-American committed a hate crime on a Caucasian victim (Marcus-Ne whall et al., 2002). In this experiment, Caucasians did not show in-group bias, sugge sting that Caucasians no longer receive ingroup favoritism because of the misuse of the power they have in society by committing a hate crime (Marcus-Newhall et al., 2002).

PAGE 36

29 In the second experiment, the researcher s replicated and extended the findings from the first experiment by surveying indivi duals from a food court. This sample was presumed to be more similar to actual jurors than a sample of college students. Findings from this study indicated that when Caucasians committed a hate crime against an African-American victim, it was perceived as a more negative event, in comparison to a hate crime committed by an African-American perpetrator on a Caucasian victim (Marcus-Newhall et al., 2002). Additionall y, the researchers found that there was a higher certainty of guilt when the victim wa s African-American and the perpetrator was Caucasian. However there was no signifi cant effect on sentencing rating. In the third experiment, the researcher s recruited 35 minority and 83 Caucasian participants. The race of the perpetrator was held constant as Caucasian, while the race of the victim was manipulated. Juror race was also examined to determine what influence it might exert on guilt outcomes. Th e results showed that minority participants displayed in-group favoritism. Specifically, minority mock jurors perceived the hate crime event more severe when the victim was African-American than when the victim was Caucasian (Marcus-Newhall et al., 2002). Overall, race of the perpetrator and race of the victim differentially in fluenced mock jurors (Marcu s-Newhall et al., 2002). While prior research has demonstrated in-group favoritism in non-race salient conditions (Sommers & Ellsworth, 2000), hate crime rese arch is congruent w ith racially salient findings, such that Caucasian mock jurors do not exhibit in-group favoritism (Sommers & Ellsworth, 2000; Marcus-Newhall et al., 2002 ). Researchers have suggested that the out-group favoritism is connected to attemp ts to appear non-prejudicial (Sommers &

PAGE 37

30 Ellsworth, 2000; Marcus-Newhall et al., 2002); this attempt is explained by the aversive racism theory (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1988). The aversive racism theory hypothesizes a sub-conscious effort by Caucasian Americans who hold prejudicial attitudes to maintain a non-prejudicial social image. Aversive racists believe that they are not prejudiced; however they have negative, racist beliefs and feelings that they may be unaware of, or that they try to disassociate from their social image. The negative, racial belie fs generally stem from learned social biases that may have been influenced by media repr esentations of minority groups. Aversive racists will not show their prejudicial attitude s in public. However, a display of prejudice may occur in situations where their actions can be justified by anot her cause other than race, such as negligence committed by a minority group member (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1988). The second study on hate crimes was conduc ted by Gerstenfeld (2003). In this study, the researcher recruited 190 volunt ary participants, co mposed of both undergraduate students and non-st udent adults. The participan ts were informed that the perpetrator had been charged with an assault felony, felony assault with a deadly weapon, and a hate crime. He hypothesized that African-American defendants would be found guilty at a significantly higher rate and receive harsher sentences in comparison to Caucasian defendants. This is consistent with the general resear ch findings regarding punitive behavior toward African-American defendants (Sommers & Ellsworth, 2000; Marcus-Newhall et al., 2002; Kemmelmeier, 2005). However, this study found results similar to other studies in hate crimes a nd jury decision making research. Specifically, jurors were more certain of Caucasian defendants’ guilt and convicted Caucasian

PAGE 38

31 defendants more frequently of hate crim es. However there was no difference in sentencing (Gerstenfeld, 2003). Although the re sults were opposite to the researcher’s hypothesis, the results were congruent with ha te crime research in jury decision making. The researcher initially attributed his hypothe sis to stereotypes about African-Americans. This stereotype generally suggests that African-Americans are found guilty more frequently and receive harsher sentences than Caucasians. However, statistics show that African-Americans are more frequently vic tims of hate crimes, and Caucasians are generally the perpetrators of hate crimes (Green et al., 1998; Saucier et al., 2006; Nolan et al., 2002; Jacobs & Potter, 1997). Thus, the stereotype for hate crimes (AfricanAmerican victims and Caucasian perpetrators) is different from gene ral stereotypes about African-American criminal behavior. The third hate crime study (Saucier et al ., 2006) sought to examine the mock juror (i.e., college students) beliefs about hate crim es sentencing compared to non-hate crimes. The participants read an assa ult crime scenario where the defendant insulted the victim with racial slurs. The results of this study showed that the participants were more likely to give more severe sentences when the vi ctim was an African-American male, Jewish male, Latino male, Asian male, or gay male than if the victim was a Caucasian female or a Caucasian male in the simple assault conditi ons. They also found that participants were likely to classify the assault as a hate cr ime when it was against a minority group member than when it was against Caucasians. Additionally, the participants believed that the hate crimes were more severe than other crimes (Saucier et al., 2006). Notably, however, the authors did not explicitly label the crime depicted in the scenario as a hate crime. This is important because using the term, hate crim e, ensures participants’ awareness of the

PAGE 39

32 presence of the hate crime; this avoids pot ential misinterpretati ons between racially manipulated scenarios and actual hate crime conditions. In the fourth hate crime study, Craig et al., (1999) examined 24 African-American and 49 Caucasian male participants obse rving video-taped assaults, across two conditions. In one condition the perpetrator a nd the victim were the same race. In the second condition, the race was varied where the assailant was Caucasian and the victim was African-American, and vice versa. In th is condition, the perpet rator and the victim exchanged racially provocative remarks. Th e second condition was classified as the hate crime condition in this study. The results of this study showed th at African-American participants rated the hate crime event as mo re typical and likely to occur in comparison to the Caucasian participants. Additionally, Af rican-American participants indicated that they were more likely to retaliate and expr ess desire for revenge if put in a similar situation (Craig, 1999). All four studies are congruent with history and statistics that show that AfricanAmericans tend to be victims of hate crimes more frequently than Caucasians (Craig, 1999; Marcus-Newhall et al., 2002 ; Gerstenfeld, 2003; Saucie r et al., 2006; Jacobs & Potter, 1997; Saucier et al., 2006; Green et al ., 1998; Nolan et al., 2002; Torres, 1999). Stereotypic notions of what a hate crime is, is influenced by the perpetrator and victims’ races. While the studies presented in this sect ion provide an opening to research in this area, the studies have identified flaws that need to be addressed for future research. The following section explores the flaws found in these studies.

PAGE 40

33 Flaws in Existing Hate Crime and Jury Decision Making Research The design in the Craig et al. (1999) study was flawed. First, all participants watched the video scenes where the assault o ccurred either on the same race or different race victim. This design is flawed because it inhibits the participants’ ability to independently evaluate each scene since they have been exposed to both crime scenarios. Juror perceptions of the race manipulated c ondition are influenced by the observation of the non-race condition. Ideally, participants should be randomly assigned to different assault conditions, one group of particip ants having observed only the non-race condition, and another group of participan ts having observed the race manipulated condition. Other hate crime researchers (MarcusNewhall et al. 2002; Gerstenfeld 2003; Saucier et al., 2006) presented a racially varied assault condi tion and labeled it as a hate crime; however, the term hate crime for this c ondition is not actually used. Only Craig et al. (1999) actually used the term hate cr ime in their study. As opposed to simply manipulating the race in an assault condition, the use of the term hate crime and providing sentencing guidelines for hate crim es may significantly alter the results of a study. This is because labeling the crime as a hate crime increases racial salience. Moreover, one of the very important con cerns is that while all of the studies manipulated race, none of the studies took into consideration that other factors, other than race, may have influenced adjudication and sentencing outcomes. For instance, perceptions of aggressivene ss are known to influence sentencing and adjudication (Hurwitz & Peffley, 1997; Quillian & Pager, 2001; Peffley et al., 1997). However none of the studies demonstrated that any potential ly influential factors were controlled for.

PAGE 41

34 Marcus-Newhall et al. (2002) manipulated th e race of the victim, the race of the perpetrator, and the role of peer group (peer influence – encouraging discouraging), however there was no attempt to control for any confounding factors. Gerstenfeld (2003) manipulated the offender's race, the victim's race, and the participant’s level of racism, however other covarying factors were not consid ered. In the Saucier (2006) article, the researchers manipulated severity of crime, and the target's group membership; however potential influential factors were not di scussed. And finally Craig et al. (1999) manipulated race of the perpetrator; the victim was always the same race as the participant’s race; however othe r factors that may impact the outcomes were not included in the study. Jury Decision Making in the C ontext of Hate Crimes Summary In summary, to my knowledge, only f our hate crime and jury decision making studies have been conducted. Research in this area is particularly in teresting as it reveals an in-group/out-group dynamic. The results of hate crime studies show that since the hate crime condition is a racially salient condition, Caucasian mock jurors tend to find Caucasian defendants guilty and impose harsher sentences when the victim is AfricanAmerican; Caucasian defendants show out-g roup favoritism while African-American mock jurors demonstrate in-group favoritism. The hate crime studies, as well as the statistics provided show congruency with the st ereotypes, such that Caucasians tend to be perpetrators of hate crimes and Africa n-Americans tend to be the victims. Of the studies examined, all studies have identified flaws. Of significance, while prior studies have found significant results, non e of the studies have examined to what extent legally relevant and legally irrelevant factors exert influence on mock juror’s

PAGE 42

35 decision making on adjudication and senten cing recommendations. Additionally, in some of the study designs, participants were exposed to all conditions. Three of the four conditions did not use the term hate crime. The current study seek s to address all the flaws indicated. The following chapter will describe the methods used to conduct the study. The chapters after the methods includ e the results, discussion, and conclusion.

PAGE 43

36 Chapter Four Methods Participants Participants were recruited from under graduate criminology classes at a large, state university in Florida. Pa rticipants were informed that the study was confidential and their participation was voluntary. Because the courses serve a wide variety of undergraduate students, the sample was reason ably representative of the student body of the university. Although there ar e some differences between undergraduate samples and non-college samples generally (Sears, 1986), such samples have been found to be acceptable in jury decision making research. Fo r instance, after a 20 year review of jury simulation studies, Bornstein ( 1999) noted that not only are th e majority of studies based on college samples, but that there are few substantive differences between college and community samples. Thus, the current sample is acceptable and consistent with previous studies on jury decision making. Procedure Researchers have noted that numerous st udies use the experimental approach by providing mock jurors a trial summary a nd questionnaires (Sommers & Adekanmbi, 2008, Bornstein, 1999). Sommers & Adekanmbi (2008) indicated that the experimental approach is frequently used as it increases internal validity by controlling for many factors that could potentially influence mock jurors. Using the experimental approach

PAGE 44

37 allows researchers to hold all other factors constant and focus on the variables they are attempting to manipulate (Sommers & Adekanmb i, 2008). As such, in the current study, participants were informed that they woul d participate in a st udy on legal opinions. Specifically, they were asked to read a hypothe tical court transcript and answer a series of questions about how they decided in th e case, as well as th eir opinions of the defendant, victim, and witnesses who testified. As noted below, there were four different versions of the trial. These different scenar ios were randomly distributed to participants during a regular class session. Participants were asked to return the completed questionnaire within one week. The trial sc enario and questionnaire took approximately 20 minutes to complete. Students were given extra credit in the course for completing the protocol. Students who opted not to participate in the resear ch, but wanted extra credit were provided with an alternativ e way of earning extra credit. Study Materials Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions. In all conditions, participants were provided with the basic facts of the case, which were supplemented with an abbreviated court transcript. In ev ery scenario, the offenses (aggravated battery and robbery) and the facts of the case were th e same. What varied across the scenarios was the inclusion of racially salient material The race of the offenders and victims were also varied all study conditions. The first a nd second conditions were the racially salient hate crime conditions. The third and fourth conditions were non-ha te crime conditions. In the first and third conditi on, the victim was African-Ameri can and the perpetrator was Caucasian. In the second and fourth conditi on, victim was Caucasian and the perpetrator was African-American. The first two conditions were termed the hate crime conditions

PAGE 45

38 as they were explicitly defined as hate cr imes. In addition, thes e initial two conditions contained testimony that the offender used raci al slurs. The third and fourth condition did not include testimony that th e perpetrator used racial slur s; only the race of the victim and perpetrator were varied. Therefore, th e third and fourth conditions were named the non-hate crime conditions. After reading the tr ial scenario, participants answered several questions (see next section, Measures of Dependant Variables ). Measures of Independent and Dependent Variables Verdicts. Jurors were asked to render separate verdicts (for aggravated battery and robbery) in this hypothetical case. Specifically, they chos e between the options of “1 = Guilty” and “2 = Not Guilty.” In addition, th ey were asked to indicate the likelihood that the defendant committed the crimes; res ponses ranged from 1 (“not at all likely”) to 10 (“the defendant definitely committed the crime”). Participants were asked the second question to establish variab ility in responses with respect to adjudication. Punishment Severity. Jurors were asked to recommend a sentence for aggravated battery and robbery. Jurors were asked to rate how much punishment the defendant deserved on a scale of 1 (no punishment) to 10 (maximum punishment). Participants were also asked to recommend a sentence, fr om no sentence to 13 – 15 years for the nonhate crime conditions or no se ntence to 28 – 30 years for the hate crime conditions. While jurors in actual cases do not determine sentencing, I was interested in investigating whether participants would respond in accord ance with sentencing guidelines and hate crime laws. Perceptions of Trial Participants. In all conditions, jurors responded to questions asking how aggressive they believed the defenda nt was on a scale of 1 (not aggressive at

PAGE 46

39 all) to 10 (very aggressive). They rated how likely they believed the defendant would commit a crime in the future on a scale of 1 ( not likely) to 10 (very likely). Correlational analyses were computed to examine inter-rel ationships between the two above mentioned variables. Results indicated that the defendant’s perceived aggressiveness and likelihood for future criminal activity were strongly, si gnificantly, and positively correlated (r = 0.8, p < .01). As such, a dangerousness variable was created by combining the raw scores of the defendant’s perceived aggressiveness a nd likelihood of future criminal activity. Additionally, jurors rated the cr edibility of the witnesses (v ictim and police) in the trial on a scale of 1 (not believable at all) to 10 (very believable) And finally, mock jurors rated how attractive they believed the defendant and the victim were on a scale of 1 (not attractive) to 10 (very attractive). Mock ju rors were asked about their perceptions on dangerousness, witness credibility, and at tractiveness because prior research has suggested that the above men tioned perceptions exert influe nce on mock juror’s decisions on adjudication and sentencing (Marcus-Ne whall et al., 2002; Hymes et al., 1993; Mazzella & Feingold, 1994; Reskin & Vish er 1986; Lizotte, 1978; Hagan, 1974). Although these factors influence juror decisi on making, some factors are expected to exert influence (legally relevant variables) while others are not (legally irrelevant variables). Specifically, witness credibility is a legally releva nt factor for guilt adjudication; it is a legally irrelevant factor for senten cing (775.085, Florida Statutes, Supp. 1998). Dangerousness is a legally rele vant factor for sentence recommendations and deserved punishment; it is a legally ir relevant factor for guilt adjudication (775.085, Florida Statutes, Supp. 1998). A ttractiveness, however, is a le gally irrelevant factor for all outcomes (Zebrowitz & McDonald, 1991). Mock jurors were asked about the above

PAGE 47

40 mentioned factors as they may be potential covariates that influence adjudication, deserved punishment, and sentencing outcome s. The aim of this study was to examine the true independent effects of offender-v ictim racial composition and type of crime manipulations, by controlling for these covarying factors. Perceptions of Racially Motivating Factors. In the first two conditions that were labeled hate crime conditions, mock jurors were asked whether they believed the crime committed was a hate crime; mock jurors answered yes if they believed it was a hate crime and no if they did not believe it was a ha te crime. Furthermore, in the hate crime and non-hate crime conditions, mock jurors were asked whether they believed the victim was a target because of his race on a scale of 1 (not likely) to 10 (very likely) and whether the defendant was prej udicial on the same scale. Correlational analyses were computed to examine inter-relationships betw een these latter 2 variables. The results demonstrated a strong, significant and positive correlation between the defendant’s prejudice and whether the victim was targeted because of race (r = 0.6, p < .01). Therefore, a hate motivation variable was created by combining the raw scores of two variables indicated above. Similar to the c ovariates (dangerousness, witness credibility, and attractiveness) previously indicated, ha te motivation was examined as a potential covarying factor, as it is known to influence adjudication and sentencing outcomes (Craig et al., 1999; Saucier et al., 2006; Gerste nfeld, 2003; Marcus-Newhall et al., 2002). Additionally, with respect to legal relevance in criminal cases, hate motivation is a legally relevant factor for hate crime adjudi cation and sentencing and a legally irrelevant factor for crime adjudication and non-h ate crimes (775.085, Florida Statutes, Supp. 1998).

PAGE 48

41 Juror Characteristics. Jurors answered questions regarding demographic characteristics. Specificall y, jurors responded to questions about age, sex, race, and ethnicity. The purpose of obtaining demographi c information was to garner information on the mock juror characteristics for the sample acquired for this study. Hypothesis This section outlines the hypotheses fo r the hate crime conditions for both aggravated battery and robbery, as well as hypotheses focusing on the interracial dynamics of the offender and victim dyads. Hypothesis 1: Based on previous resea rch that has focused on the influence of racial salience, there will be differences in adjudications across the experimental conditions: 1a). Chi-square analyses will indicate th at the distribution of guilt adjudication for aggravated assault and robbery will signifi cantly vary across expe rimental conditions; 1b). Chi-square analyses will indicate th at the distribution of hate adjudication will significantly vary acro ss experimental conditions; Hypothesis 2: Several covariates will be included in the multivariate models to examine their influence on guilt adjudication, deserved punishment, and sentence recommendations. Additionally, the covariate s will be included in the multivariate model to examine whether the experimental manipulations persist after controlling for offender dangerousness, witness credibility, and hate motivation. The following hypotheses are offered regarding those covariates:

PAGE 49

42 2a). Perceptions of witness credibility (victim and police) will be significantly related to ratings of the likelihood that th e defendant committed both crimes (aggravated battery and robbery); 2b). Perceptions of offender dangerousne ss will be significantly related to sentence recommendations and deserved punish ment for aggravated battery and robbery; 2c). Perceptions of hate motivation w ill be significantly related to deserved punishment and sentence recommendations for aggravated battery and robbery; Although previous research has suggested th at hate crimes are viewed differently than non-hate crimes, the extant literature has not examined the influence of offendervictim racial composition and the effect of la beling crimes as hate crimes. In this study, the offender–victim dyad was expected to intera ct with the effect of labeling the crimes as hate crimes even after controlling for o ffender dangerousness, w itness credibility, and hate motivation. As such, the following hypotheses are proposed: Hypothesis 3: There will be no main effe ct observed for type of crime (hate versus non-hate) on ratings of the li kelihood the defendant committed aggravated battery and robbery, deserved punishme nt, and sentence recommendations. Hypothesis 4: There will be no main effect observed for offender-victim racial composition (Caucasian offender/ African-American victim versus AfricanAmerican offender/Caucasian victim) on ra tings of the likelihood the defendant committed aggravated battery and robber y, deserved punishment, and sentence recommendations. Hypothesis 5: There will be an interactio n between type of crime (hate versus non-hate) and offender-victim racial co mposition (Caucasian offender/African-

PAGE 50

43 American victim versus African-American of fender/Caucasian victim) on ratings of the likelihood the defendant committed aggravated battery and robbery, deserved punishment, and sentence recommendation s after controlling for offender dangerousness, witness credibility, and hate motivation: 5a). For those conditions labeled as hate crimes, there will be significantly higher means on (1) the likelihood that the defenda nt committed the crimes, (2) the deserved punishment, and (3) the recommended sentence wh en the victim is African-American and the defendant is Caucasian after controlling for offender dangerousness, witness credibility, and hate motivation [compared to when the victim is Caucasian and the defendant is African-American]; 5b). For those conditions that are not la beled as hate crimes, there will be significantly higher means on (1 ) the likelihood that the defe ndant committed aggravated battery and robbery, (2) the deserved punishment, and (3) the recommended sentence when the victim is Caucasian and the defenda nt is African-American after controlling for offender dangerousness, witness credibility, a nd hate motivation [compared to when the victim is African-American and the defendant is Caucasian]; Design and Statistical Analysis I computed descriptive statistics to obtain information on the mock juror characteristics for the sample acquired. Correlations were conducted to establish relationships among variables. Chi-square analyses were also computed to examine categorical data for guilt adjudication for a ggravated battery and r obbery, and perceptions of hate crimes. I conducted a 2 x 2 Fact orial Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) to examine main effects for type of crime (hate versus non-hate), offender-

PAGE 51

44 victim racial composition (Caucasian/African -American), and the interaction between these two variables on ratings of likelihood the defendant committed aggravated battery and robbery, deserved punishment, and senten cing. I then examined the same fixed factors and outcome variable s after controlling for pe rceived racial motivation, dangerousness, and witness credibility. Because covariates were included in this final series of analyses, a 2 x 2 Factorial Mu ltivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA) was used.

PAGE 52

45 Chapter Five Results In the current study there were 90 pa rticipants. All participants were undergraduate college students enrolled in criminology courses. There were 60 (66.7%) Caucasian participants, 12 (13.3%) African -American participan ts, 16 (17.7%) other participants (Asian, American -Indian or Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander), and 2 (2.2%) participants missing race information. Twenty (22.2%) participants identified themselves as La tino/Hispanic, and 70 ( 77.8%) participants who did not identify themselves as Latino/Hisp anic. There were 43 (47.8%) female and 47 (52.2%) male participants. The ages of the participants ranged from 19 years old to 50 years old. The average age was 23 years old. First, bivariate correlations were comput ed to explore the relationships among the study variables. Of particular interest were the relationshi ps between dangerousness, hate motivation, witness credibility (police and victim), and attr activeness, with likelihood for guilt adjudication, deserved punishment, and se ntencing. Cohen’s (1992) standards were used to determine small, medium, an d large effect sizes for this study. The results showed that for aggravated battery, there was a significant, strong, and positive relationship between the outcome variable of likelihood of guilt adjudication and dangerousness (r = 0.761, p < .01) and police credibility (r = 0.576, p < .01), a moderate relationship with vic tim credibility (r = 0.409, p < .01), and a small relationship with hate

PAGE 53

46 motivation (r = 0.281, p < .01). Additionally, for robbery, there was a significant, strong, and positive relationship between likeli hood of guilt adjudication and perceived dangerousness (r = 0.693, p < .01), moderate relationships with witness credibility with both victim (r = 0.342, p < .01) and police (r = 0.438, p < .01), and a small correlation with hate motivation (r = 0.221, p < .05). Attractiveness was not significantly related to likelihood of guilt adjudication for aggravated battery and robbery. Regarding the outcome variable of deserved punishment, the results showed a significant, strong, and positive relationship between deserved punishment and perceived dangerousness (r = 0.622, p < .01), and moderate relationshi ps with hate motivation (r = 0.493, p < .01) and witness credibilit y with both the police (r = 0.540, p < .01) and the victim (r = 0.409, p < .01) for aggravated battery. Th ere were significant, positive, and moderate relationships observed betw een deserved punishment and perceived dangerousness (r = 0.480, p < .01), and police credibility (r = 0.335, p < .01), and small relationships with vic tim credibility (r = 0.199, p < .05) and hate motivation (r = 0.292, p < .01) for robbery. Attractiveness was not significantly correlat ed with deserved punishment for aggravated battery and robbery. Finally, in reference to the outcome vari able for sentencing, the results indicated that there was a significan t, strong, and positive relati onship between sentencing and perceived dangerousness (r = 0.565, p < .01) and a moderate relationship with hate motivation (r = 0.449, p < .01). Additionally, there was a significant, moderate, and positive relationship between sentencing and witness credibility for both police (r = 0.510, p < .01) and victim (r = 0.364, p < .01) for aggravated battery. The results also showed that there were significant, moderate, and positive relationships between

PAGE 54

47 sentencing and perceive d dangerousness (r = 0.581, p < .01), hate motivation (r = 0.387, p < .01), and witness credibility for the police (r = 0.416, p < .01), and a small relationship with witness cred ibility for the victim (r = 0.261, p < .01) for robbery. Attractiveness was not significantly related to sentencing for aggravated battery and robbery. In summary, dangerousness, hate motiva tion, and witness credibility (police and victim) were significantly related to likelihood of guilt adjudication, deserved punishment, and sentencing. However attrac tiveness was not significantly correlated with any of the outcome variables (see Ta ble 1). Therefore, the bivariate findings indicate that factors, such as dangerousness, witness credib ility, and hate motivation need to be controlled for in the multivariate analyses in order to evaluate the whether or not the manipulations related to (1) labeling the crim e as a hate crime and (2) varying the victimoffender races exerted any independent influenc e. Attractiveness was not included in the multivariate analyses as a covariate as it was not related to likelihood of guilt adjudication, deserved punishment, and sentencing.

PAGE 55

48 Table 1 Correlations Between Adjudication and Puni shment Variables with Aggressiveness, Likelihood of Future Crime, and Pr ejudice for the Hate Crime Study Prison Punishment Prison Punishment Likely Likely Battery Battery Robbery Robbery Battery Robbery Danger.565** .622** .480** .581** .761** .693** Race .449** .493** .292** .387** .281** .221* Motivation Police .510** .540** .335** .416** .576** .438** Credibility Victim .364** .409** .199* .261** .409** .342** Credibility Def. .003 .134 -.061 .087 .094 .031 Attractiveness Victim .088 .134 .007 .160 .140 .120 Attractiveness n = 90 **p < .01 *p < .05 Following correlational analyses, I conducted chi-square analyses to test whether there were differences across experimental conditions for 1. guilt adjudication and 2. hate adjudication. The first chi-square analysis examined whether the guilty verdicts (guilty vs. not guilty) varied by condition for the ag gravated assault and robbery. The first hypothesis suggested that there would be obser ved differences in adjudication across the experimental conditions. The chi-square was statistically sign ificant, therefore suggesting that there were sign ificant differences across the cells that did not occur by

PAGE 56

49 chance for aggravated battery ( 2 (3, n = 89) = 11.795, p < .05). However, the chi-square for robbery was not stat istically significant ( 2 (3, n = 90) = 6.458, p > .05), thus there were no differences across the cells; th erefore hypothesis 1a. was supported for aggravated battery only. Although chi-square analyses cannot indi cate precisely which cells differ from one another, an examination of the percentages in each cell does provide some insight into where the greatest differen ces lie. Thirty-one percent of mock jurors found the African-American defendant (Caucasia n victim) guilty for aggravated battery, in comparison to 17.8% of mock jurors w ho found the Caucasian defendant (AfricanAmerican victim) guilty for aggravated ba ttery when comparing the two hate crime conditions. When comparing the non-hate crime conditions 11.1% of mock jurors found the African-American defendant (Caucasian victim) guilty for aggravated battery compared to 40.0% of mock jurors who found the Caucasian defendant (AfricanAmerican victim) guilty for a ggravated battery. Please see table 2 for details. It is important to note that these analyses did not include covariates. Thus, it remains unclear whether these differences were due to the experimental manipulations or some other factors. (This more detailed analysis will be the focus of the MANCOVAs that follow.)

PAGE 57

50 Table 2 Chi-Square Analysis for Guilty Verdicts for Assault and Robbery – the Observed Counts vs. Expected Counts Aggravated Battery Robbery Condition Guilty Not Guilty Guilty Not Guilty 1. Hate – BV/WD Count 8 9 8 9 % within Decision 17.8% 20.5% 19.5% 18.4% 2. Hate – WV/BD Count 14 12 14 11 % within Decision 31.1% 25.0% 34.1% 24.5% 3. Non-Hate – BV/WD Count 14 11 18 7 % within Decision 40.0% 15.9% 34.1% 22.4% 4. Non-Hate – WV/BD Count 5 17 5 17 % within Decision 11.1% 38.6% 12.2% 34.73% Total 45 44 41 49 % Total within Decision 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n = 90 The third chi-square test examined whet her participants viewed the two hate conditions as actual hate crimes. Since the first two conditions were described as hate crimes (the remaining two conditions did not contain explicit sugges tion that the crimes were classified as hate crimes), only these tw o conditions were included in this analysis. The results showed that the chi-square value was statistically signifi cant, indicating that the distribution for hate adj udication significantly varied acr oss experimental hate crime conditions ( 2 (1, n = 42) = 4.061, p < .05); therefore hypothesis 1b. was supported. The analysis revealed that the 51.9% of mock jurors believed the crime was a hate crime when the victim was African-American and th e defendant was Caucasian, in comparison to 20.0% who did not. However, when the vi ctim was Caucasian and the defendant was

PAGE 58

51 African-American, 48.1% of mock jurors be lieved the crime was a hate crime in comparison to 80.0% who did not. This pattern of results suggests that the most notable differences were in regards to when the defendant was Caucasian and the victim was African-American. Further, the distribution of guilty verdicts suggests that when the victim is African-American and the offender is Caucasian, mock jurors are inclined to view this as more representa tive of a hate crime than when the offender is AfricanAmerican and the victim is Caucasian. Please see table 3 for a review of the hate crime verdicts. Table 3 Chi-Square Analysis for Hate Crime Verdicts – the Observed Counts vs. Expected Counts Condition Yes No 1. Hate – BV/WD Count 14 3 % within Decision 51.9% 20.0% 2. Hate – WV/BD Count 13 12 % within Decision 48.1% 80.0% Total 27 15 % within Decision 100.0% 100.0% n = 42 Upon completion of the chi-square anal yses, the multivariate analyses were computed. The goal was to asses whether type of crime (hate versus non-hate), offendervictim racial composition (Caucasian/African -American), or the interaction between these two variables influenced determinations of (1) likelihood of guilt adjudication, (2) recommended sentence, and (3) punishment recommendations. These analyses were separated by crime (aggravated battery and robbery) and cond ucted in two stages. The

PAGE 59

52 first stage used type of crime and offender-v ictim racial composition as the fixed factors and examined whether these factors or the in teraction between them influenced the above mentioned outcomes before controlling for da ngerousness, witness credibility, and hate motivation. As such, the first series of anal yses employed a 2 x 2 Factorial Multivariate Analyses of Variance (MANOVAs), which is a test used to assess the exerted influence of two fixed factors and their interaction on ratings of multiple (more than one) dependent variables (outcomes). The second stage assessed the influence of type of crime and offender-victim racial composition on guilt adjudication, deserved punishment, and sentence recommendations after controlling for offe nder dangerousness, witness credibility, and hate motivation. The second stage used of 2 x 2 Factorial Multivariate Analyses of Covariance (MANCOVAs), which is a statistical an alyses employed to examine the influence two fixed factors and their interaction exert on outcome variables after controlling for variables that have potential influence on the outcomes. The objective for employing such a statistical technique was to assess whether the experimental manipulations still exert influe nce on the outcomes after controlling certain influential variables. Additionally the MANCOVAs were also conducted to examine whether the covariates exerted a ny influence on the outcomes. The first 2 x 2 Factorial MANOVA focu sed on whether there would be main effects observed for type of crime (hate versus non-hate), offender-victim racial composition (Caucasian/African-American), and the interaction between these variables on ratings of likelihood the defendant comm itted aggravated battery and deserved punishment. The objective was to examine the effects of the experimental manipulations

PAGE 60

53 on the outcome variables before controlling fo r potential covarying factors (see Table 4 for descriptive statistics). Table 4 Descriptive Statistics for Hate Crime Study Examining Type of Crime, Victim-Offender Racial Composition, and Interaction E ffects on Ratings of Likelihood of Guilt Adjudication and Deserved Punish ment for Aggravated Battery. Hate Crime Race Mean SD N Condition Likelihood for Yes BV/WD 6.19 2.04 16 Aggravated Battery Yes WV/BD 7.46 1.96 26 No BV/WD 7.12 2.13 25 No WV/BD 5.19 2.89 21 Deserved Punishment Yes BV/WD 4.94 3.15 16 Aggravated Battery Yes WV/BD 4.93 3.24 26 No BV/WD 5.32 3.11 25 No WV/BD 2.90 2.23 21 n = 83 The multivariate results showed that th ere were no significant main effects observed for type of crime (multivariate F (2, 83) = 1.059, p > .05) or offender-victim racial composition (multivariate F (2, 83) = 1.921, p > .05). However, the interaction was significant (multivariate F (2, 82) = 5.205, p = .007). The multivariate F statistic indicates whether the independe nt variables have any influe nce on any the outcomes. In a MANOVA, there are multiple dependent variables. However, to further examine the influence of the independent variable on each specific dependent variable in the model, one must examine the between-subjects effects. In this first 2 x 2 Factorial MANOVA, the test for between-subjects effects showed that the interaction effect was significantly related to ratings of guilt like lihood for aggravated battery ( F (1, 84) = 10.514, p = .002).

PAGE 61

54 The R2 value was .11, which indicated that the interaction between type of crime and offender-victim racial compos ition explained 11% of the va riance for guilt likelihood for aggravated battery. With respect to dese rved punishment, the interaction was only marginally significant ( F (1, 84) = 3.441, p = .067). The R2 value was .04, which indicated that the interaction between t ype of crime and o ffender-victim racial composition explained 4% of the variance for guilt likelihood for aggravated battery. See table 5 for details. Table 5 2 x 2 Factorial MANOVA Summary Table for Hate Crime Study Examining Type of Crime, Victim-Offender Racial Composition, and Interaction Effects on Ratings of Likelihood of Guilt Adjudication and Deserved Punishment for Aggravated Battery. Fixed Factor DV SS df MS F R2 Type of Crime Likelihood for 9.501 1 9.501 1.836 .02 Battery Deserved 14.190 1 14.190 1.598 .02 Punishment O-V Likelihood 2.278 1 2.278 .440 .01 Race Comp. Battery Deserved 31.304 1 31.304 3.525 .04 Punishment Crime*Race Likelihood 54.421 1 54.421 10.514* .11 Battery Deserved 30.565 1 30.565 3.441a .04 Punishment n = 43 *p < .05 a marginal significance appro aching .05 significance level As shown in the estimated marginal mean s (see Figure 1), the interaction was not consistent with the expected direction as s uggested in prior research. Specifically, in the

PAGE 62

55 hate crime condition, the mean likelihood th at the defendant committed the crime was higher when the offender was African-A merican and the victim was Caucasian, compared to when the offender was Caucasian and the victim was African-American. As noted in the hypotheses, it was expected that there would be higher means for likelihood that the defendant committed the crime when the victim was Afri can American. In the non-hate crime condition, the mean likelihood that the defendant committed aggravated battery was higher when the offender was Caucasian and the victim was AfricanAmerican, compared to when the offender was African-American and the victim was Caucasian. Again, the hypothesis stated that when the crime was not labeled as a hate crime, higher means would be observed when the victim was white. The same series of analyses were conducted when examining the outcome of sentence recommendations. Specifically, a 2 x 2 Factorial ANOVA was computed to examine whether there were main effects obs erved for type of crime (hate versus nonhate), offender-victim racial composition (Caucasian/African-American), and the interaction between these variables on ra tings of sentence recommendations for aggravated battery. The purpose of computing this analysis separately was to examine the recommended sentence only for those mock jurors that had found the defendant guilty for aggravated battery (n = 41).

PAGE 63

56 Hate Crime ConditionNo YesEstimated Marginal Means8.0 7.5 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 Race of the VictimBlack White Figure 1. Estimated Marginal Means of Like lihood that the Defendant Committed Aggravated Battery The results demonstrated non-significant fi ndings for main effects of type of crime ( F (1, 41) = 2.676, p = .110) and offender-victim racial composition ( F (1, 41) = 0.663, p = .420), and the interaction be tween these two variables ( F (1, 41) = 0.340, p = .563) on ratings of recommended sentence for aggravated battery; this finding did not support prior studies and hypothesi s 5. See table 6 for details.

PAGE 64

57 Table 6 2 x 2 Factorial ANOVA Summary Table for Hate Crime Study Examining Type of Crime, Victim-Offender Racial Composition, and Inte raction Effects on Ratings of Sentencing Recommendations for Aggravated Battery. Fixed Factor DV SS df MS F R2 Type of Crime Years in Prison 6.927 1 6.927 2.676 .06 For Battery O-V Years in Prison 1.715 1 1.715 .663 .02 Race Comp. For Battery Crime*Race Years in Prison .880 1 .880 .340 .01 For Battery n = 41 *p < .05 The analyses examined thus far have asked and answered questions similar to previous studies in hate crime and jury deci sion making research. However, those studies did not control for factors such as dangerous ness, hate motivation, a nd witness credibility that may have impacted mock juror’s d ecision making on guilt adjudication, deserved punishment, and sentencing. Thus, any significa nt findings may have been a function of the covarying factors indicated above, as oppos ed to the independent effects of offendervictim racial composition or labeling a crime as a hate crime. The following MANCOVA was computed to determine whether there were main effects observed for type of crime (hate versus non-hate), offender-victim racial composition (Caucasian/African-American), and the interaction between these variables on ratings of likelihood the defendant comm itted aggravated battery and deserved punishment after controlling for perceptions of offender dangerousness, hate motivation,

PAGE 65

58 and witness credibility (victim and police). The purpose of conducting this analysis was to determine whether the offender-victim race manipulation, or the hate crime manipulation, or a combination of both we re truly impacting likelihood of guilt and recommended punishment after controlling for the above mentioned variables. Additionally, the analyses would examine wh ether dangerousness, hate motivation, and witness credibility would exer t a significant influence on th e dependent variables. The second hypothesis indicated th at witness credibility woul d impact guilt likelihood, while dangerousness and hate motivation would im pact deserved punishment. The third and forth hypothesis suggested that there would be no main effects observed for type of crime and offender-victim racial composition on ratings of guilt likelihood, deserved punishment, and sentencing recommendations. However the fifth hypothesis suggested that there would be an interaction between type of crime and offender-victim racial composition on ratings of guilt likelihood, deserved punishment, sentencing recommendations after controlling for offende r dangerousness, witn ess credibility, and hate motivation. Specifically, for those conditions labeled as hate crimes, there would be significantly higher means on the likelihood th at the defendant committed aggravated battery and deserved punishment when the victim was African-American and the defendant was Caucasian. However, for thos e conditions that are not labeled as hate crimes, there would be significantly higher means on the likelihood that the defendant committed aggravated battery and deserved punishment when the victim was Caucasian and the defendant was African-American. The results of these analyses revealed that after controlli ng for dangerousness, hate motivation, and witness credibility, ther e were no significant main effects observed

PAGE 66

59 for type of crime (multivariate F (2, 76) = 0.083, p = .920), offender-victim racial composition (multivariate F (2, 76) = 0.211, p = .810), and interaction effects between these two variables (multivariate F (2, 76) = 2.305, p = .107) on ratings of guilt likelihood and deserved punishment. Thes e findings supported hypothesis 3 and 4. However, they failed to support the hypothesis 5. Regarding the covariates, both victim (multivariate F (2, 76) = .188, p = .829) and police credibility (multivariate F (2, 76) = 1.383, p = .257) were non-significant, thus not supporting hypothesis 2a. However, the tests of Between-Subjects Effects showed that dangerousness significantly impacted ratings of guilt likelihood ( F (1, 77) = 43.577, p = .000) and deserved punishment ( F (1, 77) = 17.214, p = .000). The R2 value indicated that dangero usness explained 36% of the variance for guilt likelihood for a ggravated battery and 18% of the variance for deserved punishment. Additionally, hate motivati on had a significant impact on ratings of deserved punishment ( F (1, 77) = 9.815, p = .002). The R2 value was .11, which indicated that hate motivation explained 11% of the variance for deserved punishment for aggravated battery. Therefore, hypothes is 2 b. and 2c. were supported. Although dangerousness is a legally relevant factor for deserved punishment, it should not be considered for guilt likelihood; however, the results suggested that dangerousness impacted guilt likelihood, as well as deserved punishment. See table 7 for details.

PAGE 67

60 Table 7 2 x 2 Factorial MANCOVA Summary Table for Hate Crime Study Examining Type of Crime, VictimOffender Racial Composition, and Interaction Effects on outcome variables after controlling for dangerousness, witness credibility, and hate motivation for Aggravated Battery. Fixed Factor DV SS df MS F R2 Dangerousness Likelihood 104.047 1 104.047 43.577** .36 Battery Deserved 85.943 1 85.943 17.314* .18 Punishment Hate Motivation Likelihood for .393 1 .393 .165 .00 Battery Deserved 49.004 1 49.004 9.815** .11 Punishment Victim Likelihood for .739 1 .739 .310 .00 Credibility Battery Deserved .799 1 .799 .160 .00 Punishment Police Likelihood for 5.604 1 5.604 2.347 .03 Credibility Battery Deserved 5.427 1 5.427 1.087 .01 Punishment Type of Likelihood for 9.145E-02 1 9.145E-02 .038 .00 Crime Battery Deserved .446 1 .446 .089 .00 Punishment Offender-Victim Likelihood for .309 1 .309 .129 .00 Race Composition Battery Deserved .952 1 .952 .191 .00 Punishment Crime*Race Likelihood for 10.735 1 10.735 4.496 .37 Battery Deserved 4.440 1 4.440 .889 .01 Punishment n = 77; *p < .05 **p < .01

PAGE 68

61 Although the 2 x 2 Factorial ANOVA (p resented above) demonstrated nonsignificant findings related to sentencing, th e Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was computed to examine whether dangerousness, hate motivation, and witness credibility, were related to sentencing recommendati ons. Recall that sentencing was computed separately to only examine those mock juro rs that had found the defendant guilty for aggravated battery (n = 35). In examining the resu lts, dangerousness and witness credibility were non-significant. However, hate motivation exerted a significant impact on sentencing ( F (1, 35) = 6.958, p = .012). This finding supported hypothesis 2c. The R2 value was .17, which indicated that hate mo tivation explained 17% of the variance for sentence recommendations for aggravated battery. See table 8 for details. Table 8 2 x 2 Factorial MANCOVA Summary Table for Hate Crime Study Examining Type of Crime, VictimOffender Racial Composition, and Interaction Effects on Sentencing after controlling for dangerousness, witness credibility, and hate motivation for Aggravated Battery. Fixed Factor DV SS df MS F R2 Dangerousness Years in Prison 8.208 1 8.208 3.722 .10 For Battery Hate Motivation Years in Prison 15.345 1 15.345 6.958* .17 For Battery Victim Years in Prison .497 1 .497 .225 .00 Credibility For Battery Police Years in Prison .227 1 .227 .103 .00 Credibility For Battery Type of Years in Prison .197 1 .197 .089 .00 Crime For Battery Offender-Victim Years in Prison 3.657 1 3.657 .017 .00 Race Composition For Battery Crime*Race Years in Prison .927 1 .927 .421 .01 For Battery n = 35 *p < .05

PAGE 69

62 Similar analyses were undertaken for the robbery charge variable. The goal was to asses whether there would be main effect s observed for type of crime (hate versus nonhate), offender-victim racial composition (Caucasian/African-American), and the interaction between these variables on ratings of (1) likelihood of guilt adjudication, (2) recommended sentence, and (3) punishment recommendations for robbery. The first analysis computed was a 2 x 2 Factorial MANOVA to examined mean differences in ratings of guilt adjudication and deserved puni shment as a function of type of crime, offender-victim racial compositi on, or the interaction of th e two variables for robbery before controlling for deserved punishment, w itness credibility, and hate motivation (see Table 9). Table 9 Descriptive Statistics for Hate Crime Study Examining Type of Crime, Victim-Offender Racial Composition, and Interaction E ffects on Ratings of Likelihood of Guilt Adjudication and Deserved Punishment for Robbery. Hate Crime Race Mean SD N Condition Likelihood for Yes BV/WD 5.44 2.03 16 Robbery Yes WV/BD 6.58 2.66 26 No BV/WD 5.24 2.98 25 No WV/BD 4.38 2.69 21 Deserved Punishment Yes BV/WD 3.94 2.67 16 For Robbery Yes WV/BD 4.19 3.37 26 No BV/WD 4.20 3.35 25 No WV/BD 2.48 2.40 21 n = 83 The multivariate results showed that th ere were no significant main effects observed for type of crime (multivariate F (2, 83) = 2.171, p = .121) offender-victim

PAGE 70

63 racial composition (multivariate F (2, 83) = 1.423, p = .247), or an in teraction effect between these two variables (multivariate F (2, 83) = 1.593, p = .209) on ratings of likelihood that the defendant committed robbery and deserved punishment. These findings were not congruent with prior rese arch, nor the hypotheses proposed for this study. See table 10 for details on between-subjects effects. Table 10 2 x 2 Factorial MANOVA Summary Table for Hate Crime Study Examining Type of Crime, Victim-Offender Racial Composition, and Interaction Effects on Ratings of Likelihood of Guilt Adjudication and Deserved Punishment for Robbery. Fixed Factor DV SS df MS F R2 Type of Likelihood 30.378 1 30.378 4.283 .05 Crime Robbery Deserved 11.205 1 11.205 1.213 .01 Punishment O-V Likelihood for .417 1 .417 .059 .00 Race Comp. Robbery Deserved 11.443 1 11.443 1.238 .02 Punishment Crime*Race Likelihood for 21.179 1 21.179 2.986 .03 Robbery Deserved 20.760 1 20.760 2.247 .03 Punishment n = 83 *p < .05 A 2 x 2 Factorial ANOVA was computed to examine main effects of type of crime, offender-victim racial composition, a nd the interaction betw een the two variables on ratings of recommended sentence for robbery separately. The purpose of this analysis

PAGE 71

64 was to examine the recommended sentence only for those mock jurors that had found the defendant guilty of robbery ( n = 37). The results demons trated that there were nonsignificant main effects for type of crime (multivariate F (1, 37) = 0.442, p = .510), offender-victim racial composition (multivariate F (1, 37) = 0.01, p = .972), and interaction effects between thes e two variables (multivariate F (1, 37) = 0.511, p = .479) on ratings of recommended sentence (years in prison for robbery). See table 11 for the between-subjects effects. Table 11 2 x 2 Factorial ANOVA Summary Table for Hate Crime Study Examining Type of Crime, Victim-Offender Racial Composition, and Inte raction Effects on Ratings of Sentencing Recommendations for Robbery. Fixed Factor DV SS df MS F R2 Type of Years in Prison 1.929 1 1.929 .442 .01 Crime For Robbery O-V Years in Prison 5.344 1 5.344 .001 .00 Race Comp. For Robbery Crime*Race Years in Prison 2.230 1 2.230 .511 .01 For Robbery n = 37 *p < .05 Despite the non-significant findings with respect to robbery, a 2 x 2 Factorial MANCOVA was nonetheless performed to ex amine whether dangerousness, witness credibility, and hate motivation were relate d to guilt likelihood and deserved punishment for robbery. The second hypothesis indicated th at the above mentioned covariates would impact guilt likelihood and deserved punish ment. Based on the preceding MANOVAs

PAGE 72

65 (presented above), there was no reason to expe ct hypotheses three, four or five would be supported in the following MANCOVA. The results indicated that the effect of witness credibility on likelihood of guilt and deserved punishment was non-significant. However dangerousness (multivariate F (2, 76) = 21.419, p = .000) and hate motivation (multivariate F (2, 76) = 3.755, p = .028) were significant. The tests of Between-S ubjects Effects showed that dangerousness significantly impacted guilt likelihood ( F (1, 77) = 40.745, p = .000) and deserved punishment ( F (1, 77) = 18.990, p = .000). The R2 value indicated that dangerousness explained 35% of the variance for guilt like lihood for robbery and 20% of the variance for deserved punishment. Additionally, hate motivation significantly impacted deserved punishment ( F (1, 77) = 6.136, p = .015). The R2 value indicated that hate motivation explained 7% of the variance for deserved punishment for robbery. These findings did not support hypothesis 2a.) that indicated that witness credib ility would be significantly related to guilt likelihood, however hypothe sis 2b. and 2c. were supported, which indicated that dangerousness and hate motiv ation would be significantly related to deserved punishment. Although dangerousness is a legally relevant factor for deserved punishment, it should not be considered fo r guilt likelihood; however, the results suggested that dangerousness impacted guilt likelihood, as well as deserved punishment. As expected, because of the null findings in the previously computed 2 x 2 Factorial MANOVA, there were non-significant main effects observed for type of crime (multivariate F (1, 77) = 1.371, p = .260), offender-victim racial composition (multivariate F (1, 77) = .738, p = .481), and the interaction between these two variables (multivariate F (1, 77) = .032, p = .969) on ratings of likelihood for guilt adjudication for

PAGE 73

66 robbery and deserved punishment after cont rolling for dangerousness, hate motivation, and witness credibility. Th erefore the third and fourth hypotheses were supported; however the fifth hypothesis wa s not supported. See table 12 for between-subjects effects. The second 2 x 2 Factorial ANCOVA was computed to examine whether dangerousness, hate motivation, and witness cr edibility were relate d to sentencing for robbery. The hypothesis indicated that the dangerousness and hate motivation would impact sentencing. Sentencing was computed separately to only examine those mock jurors that had found the defendant guilty for robbery ( n = 35). Interes tingly, the results did not support the hypothesis 2c.; the findings showed that hate motivation, and witness credibility did not signifi cantly relate to sentencin g. However, hypothesis 2b. was supported as the results showed that dangerousness was signifi cantly related to sentence recommendations for robbery ( F (1, 35) = 8.618, p = .006). The R2 value was .20, which indicated that dangerousness explaine d 20% of the variance for sentence recommendations for robbery. As expected b ecause of the null findings in the previously computed 2 x 2 Factorial ANOVA, the results of these analyses s upported the third and fourth hypothesis, however the fifth hypothesi s was not supported, illustrating that after controlling for dangerousness, hate motivati on, and witness credibility, there were no main effects observed for type of crime ( F (1, 35) = 0.240, p = .628), offender-victim racial composition ( F (1, 35) = 0.170, p = .683), and the inter action between the two variables F (1, 35) = 0.010, p = .919) on ratings of senten cing recommendations for robbery. See table 13 for between-subject s effects.

PAGE 74

67 Table 12 2 x 2 Factorial MANCOVA Summary Table for Hate Crime Study Examining Type of Crime, Victim-Offender Racial Composition, and Int eraction Effects on outcome variables after controlling for dangerousness, witness cred ibility, and hate motivation for Robbery. Fixed Factor DV SS df MS F R2 Dangerousness Likelihoo d 163.354 1 163.354 40.745** .35 Robbery Deserved 115.881 1 115.881 18.995** .20 Punishment Hate Motivation Likelihood 9.028E-03 1 9.028E-03 .002 .00 Robbery Deserved 37.432 1 37.432 6.136* .07 Punishment Victim Likelihood 1.137 1 1.137 .284 .00 Credibility Robbery Deserved 3.387 1 3.387 .555 .00 Punishment Police Likelihood 5.947E-03 1 5.947E-03 .001 .00 Credibility Robbery Deserved 1.697 1 1.697 .287 .00 Punishment Type of Crime Likelihood 7.643 1 7.643 1.906 .02 Robbery Deserved .249 1 .249 .041 .00 Punishment Offender-Victim Likelihood 5.465 1 5.465 1.363 .02 Race Composition Robbery Deserved .262 1 .262 .043 .00 Punishment Crime* Race Likelihood 7.020E-04 1 7.020E-04 .000 .00 Robbery Deserved .330 1 .330 .054 .00 Punishment n = 77 *p < .05 **p < .01

PAGE 75

68 Table 13 2 x 2 Factorial ANCOVA Summary Table fo r Hate Crime Study Examining Type of Crime, Victim-Offender Racial Composition, an d Interaction Effects on Sentencing after controlling for dangerousness, witness cred ibility, and hate motivation for Robbery. Fixed Factor DV SS df MS F R2 Dangerousness Years in Prison34.614 1 34.614 8.618** .20 For Robbery Hate Motivation Years in Prison10.752 1 10.752 2.677 .07 For Robbery Victim Years in Prison3.226 1 3.226 .803 .02 Credibility For Robbery Police Years in Prison.926 1 .926 .231 .00 Credibility For Robbery Type of Years in Prison.962 1 .962 .240 .00 Crime For Robbery Offender-Victim Years in Prison.682 1 .682 .170 .00 Race Composition For Robbery Crime*Race Years in Prison4.195 1 4.195 .010 .00 For Robbery n = 35 **p < .01 Overall, these findings suggested that so me of the covariates were significantly related to some of the outcomes. More speci fically, witness credibility did not impact guilt adjudication, deserved punishment, and sentencing. However dangerousness impacted guilt adjudication and deserved puni shment for both robbery and aggravated battery. Additionally, hate motivation impacted deserved punishment for both aggravated battery and robbery. Interesti ngly, hate motivation only impacted sentencing

PAGE 76

69 for aggravated battery; no effect was observe d for robbery. The results also demonstrated that before controlling for the above mentioned covariates there were no main effects observed for type of crime (hate versus nonhate) and offender-victim racial composition (Caucasian/African-American). While these nul l effects were predicted in the current study, it was hypothesized that they would significantly interact. However, after including the covariates in the model, the interaction effect on ratings of guilt likelihood was no longer significant, c ontrary to the proposed hypotheses. There were no other interactions observed for the other depe ndant variables (deserved punishment and sentencing recommendations). Collectively, there was only partial support across the various hypotheses in the current analysis, a pattern which will be discussed in greater detail in the conclusions. Supplemental Analyses As indicated in the previous analyses some of the hypotheses were not supported in the current study. While prior studies had previously indicated th at the race and hate crime manipulations impacted guilt adjudica tion, deserved punishment, and sentencing, these results were not observed in this study. In fact, after covariates were included in the models, none of the manipulated variables, nor their interactions were significantly related to the outcomes. This was not only inconsistent with the hypotheses, but seems inconsistent with the bivariate analyses. Specifically, there were significant differences in the adjudication of guilt observed in the ch i-square analyses. Although it was suspected that the interaction between type of crim e and victim-offender racial composition was driving this, the multivariate analyses failed to support such a conclusion. In an effort to further explore the data, and perhaps get some sense of what might have influenced mock

PAGE 77

70 jurors’ decisions about guilt, a One-Way AN OVA was computed to determine whether there were mean differences in perceptions of dangerousness and hate motivation across the conditions. The results showed a non-significant finding for dangerousness across the conditions, indicating that perceptions of dangerousness did not vary across the conditions. However, there were mean diffe rences for hate motivation across the four conditions ( F (3, 87) = 3.299, p = .024). To further examine to which of the four groups significantly differed from each other, Bonf erroni pairwise comparison tests were conducted. The results indicated that condi tion 1 (African-American victim/Caucasian defendant; hate crime) and condition 4 (C aucasian victim/African-American defendant; non-hate crime scenario) signifi cantly differed from each other; thus, mock jurors were more likely believe that the African-American victim was targeted because of hate motivation when the defendant was Caucasian in the hate crime condition, in comparison to when the victim was Caucasian and the defendant was African-American in the nonhate crime condition. This is congruent with the suggested theories on stereotypes that propose that the victim’s race and calling the cr ime a hate crime influenced mock juror’s perception of hate motivation. All other pa irwise comparisons for the hate motivation were non-significant (see Table 14).

PAGE 78

71 Table 14 Pairwise Group Comparisons of Ha te Motivation Across Conditions DV Comparison Mean SE Difference Hate Motive Hate (BV/WD) hate (WV/BD) 3.21 1.43 Inter-R (BV/WD) 2.85 1.43 Inter-R (WV/BD) 4.58* 1.48 Hate (WV/BD) Hate (BV/WD) -3.21 1.42 Inter-R (BV/WD) -.36 1.28 Inter-R (WV/BD) 1.36 1.34 Inter-R (BV/WD) Hate (BV/WD) -2.85 1.43 Hate (WV/BD) .36 1.28 Inter-R (WV/BD) 1.73 1.34 Inter-R (WV/BD) Hate (BV/WD) -4.58* 1.48 Hate (WV/BD) -1.37 1.34 Inter-R (BV/WD) -1.73 1.34 n = 87 P < .05*

PAGE 79

72 Chapter Six Discussion and Conclusion The aim of this study was to examine the influence of labeling a crime as a hate crime, the victim-offender racial compos ition, and their interaction on mock jurors’ perceptions and decision ma king. Specifically, the objectiv e was to examine whether there were main effects observed for the type of crime (hate versus non-hate), offendervictim racial composition (Caucasian/Afri can-American) and the interaction between these two variables on ratings for guilt likelihood, how much punishment the defendant deserved, and sentence recommendations afte r controlling potentia l covariates. There were five broad hypotheses in this study. The first hypothesis stated that differences in guilt and hate crime adjudications would em erge across the experimental conditions. This hypothesis was based on previous resear ch that had focused on the influence of racial salience (Sommers & Ellsworth, 2000; Marcus-Newhall et al., 2002). The second hypothesis indicated that dangerousness, hate motivation, and witness credibility would exert significant influences as well. This second series of hypotheses was important in that previous research has not included th em as potentially covarying factors when examining adjudication and sentencing outcome s. Thus, previous research which has suggested racially salient cr imes are reacted to differently may be misleading to the extent that other factors (e .g., perceptions of dangerousness) are driving mock jurors’ decision-making. The third and fourth hypothe sis stated that there would be no main

PAGE 80

73 effects observed for type of crime (hate ve rsus non-hate) and offender-victim racial composition (Caucasian/African-American) on ratings of likelihood the defendant committed aggravated battery and robbery, how much punishment the defendant deserved, and sentence recommendations. The fifth hypothesis s uggested that there would be an interaction betw een type of crime (hate vers us non-hate) and offender-victim racial composition (Caucasian offender/Af rican-American victim versus AfricanAmerican offender/Caucasian victim) on ratings of the like lihood the defendant committed aggravated battery and robbery, how much punishment the defendant deserved, and sentence recommendations. Th e statistical analyses used in this study including descriptive statistics, correlations, Chi-Squares, 2 x 2 Factorial Multivariate Analyses of Variance, and 2 x 2 Factoria l Multivariate Analyses of Covariance. First, correlational analyses were computed to determine whether the potential covariates were correlated with the outcome variables. As expected, dangerousness, hate motivation, and witness credib ility (police and victim) we re significantly related to likelihood of guilt, how much punishment the defendant deserved, and sentencing. Thus, these findings suggested that these factors we re related to jurors’ decision-making, and therefore should have been incl uded in previous research. For the purposes of this study, dangerousness, hate motivation, and witness cr edibility were included in the multivariate analyses. The purpose for including these factors as covariates was to examine the true independent effects of race or the hate cr ime manipulation on ratings of guilt likelihood, how much punishment the defendant dese rved, and sentencing recommendations. However, attractiveness was not significantly related to any of the outcome variables. Therefore, for the purposes of computing the multivariate analyses, attractiveness was not

PAGE 81

74 included as a covarying factor. After establ ishing these relationships, I proceeded to examine the several hypo theses suggested. In the first hypothesis, I anticipated that there would be differences in adjudication across cells in the experimental conditions. Specifically, it was expected that the distribution of guilt adjudication for aggravated battery and robbery would significantly vary across the four study conditi ons. Additionally, the distribution of hate adjudication would significantly vary across the first two hate crime experimental conditions. Although no specific a priori hypotheses were generated regarding the specific pattern of results in these chi-square analyses, the general patterns appeared to be inconsistent with what one might expect. For example, mock jurors appeared to render more guilty verdicts to the African-American defendant in comparison to the Caucasian defendant in the hate crime scenario for a ggravated battery. Conve rsely, in the non-hate crime condition, mock jurors rendered more guilt y verdicts to the Caucasian defendant, in comparison to the African-American defendant fo r aggravated battery. It is unclear as to exactly what may have led to these general patterns, alt hough the combined influence of the type of crime and the victim-offender re lationship would appear to be implicated. This conclusion is consistent with the multivariate analysis of variance, which showed a positive interaction effect between type of crime (hate vs. non-hate) and offender-victim racial composition (African-American / Ca ucasian) on ratings of guilt likelihood. Additionally, the estimated marginal means suggested a similar pattern to what was observed in the chi-square. Thus it appears that the interacti on effect did have an impact on guilt adjudication for battery. Importantl y, however, this interaction was rendered non-significant after the inclus ion of the covariates.

PAGE 82

75 The chi-square analysis for robbery was non-significant indicating that the distribution of guilt adjudication across expe rimental conditions did not significantly vary. It appears that this non-significant finding may have been a consequence of the limited evidence available in the trial scenarios related to robbery. It is possible that if there was more evidence that the defendant committed robbery – for instance, if the stolen items were found in the defendant’ s possession – it is plausible that guilt adjudication for robbery would have also si gnificantly varied acr oss study conditions. In addition to adjudications for guilt, I also asked mock jurors to adjudicate whether or not they perceived those crimes la beled as hate crimes as actual hate crimes. The results regarding this adjudication were qui te interesting in that mock jurors were more likely to adjudicate the crimes as hate crimes when they conformed to stereotypical views of what constitutes a hate crime. For in stance, statistics show that Caucasians are generally perpetrators of hate crimes and African-Americans are most frequently victims of hate crimes. Such occurrences create stereotypes that resu lt in people commonly believing that hate crimes are generally committed by Caucasians against AfricanAmericans (Craig et al., 1999; Saucier et al., 2006; Gerste nfeld, 2003; Marcus-Newhall et al., 2002). Interestingly, the re sults indicated that more mock jurors believed the crime was a hate crime when the victim was African-American and the defendant was Caucasian, in comparison to when the vict im was Caucasian and the defendant was African-American. This observed result is c ongruent with prior suggestions that hate crimes are stereotypically vi ewed as crimes against African-Americans (Craig et al., 1999; Saucier et al., 2006; Gerstenfel d, 2003; Marcus-Newhall et al., 2002).

PAGE 83

76 The second series of hypotheses indicated that dangerousness, witness credibility, and hate motivation would be related to guilt adjudication, ra tings of how much punishment the defendant deserved, and sentencing recommendations. The results suggested that some of these hypotheses were supported, while others were not. First, I expected that perceptions of witness credibility (police and victim) would be significantly related to ratings of the likelihood that th e defendant committed aggravated battery and robbery. Interestingly, the results suggested that witness credibility did not impact guilt adjudication, how much punishment the de fendant deserved, a nd sentencing. While witness credibility should be a legally relevant factor taken into consideration in criminal cases, the results suggested that it did not ha ve any influence on the outcomes. This null finding may be explained by evidence streng th. Perhaps the testimony provided by both the police and victim in the crime scenarios was perceived as being weak by mock jurors, and thus inconsequential in affecting guilt adjudication, how much punishment the defendant deserved, and sentencing. Second, it was hypothesized that perceptions of offender dangerousness would be significantly related to sentence recommendations and how much punishment the mock jurors believed the defendant deserved for a ggravated battery and r obbery. As expected, the results indicated that da ngerousness impacted how much punishment the defendant deserved and sentence recommendations for bot h robbery and aggravated battery crimes. Dangerousness accounted for approximately 18% of the variance for perceptions of deserved punishment. Additionally, dange rousness accounted for 10% and 20% of the variance for sentencing recommendations for aggravated battery and robbery respectively. The findings also suggested that dangerousness influenced guilt likelihood

PAGE 84

77 for aggravated battery and robbery. Danger ousness explained approximately 35% of the variance for likelihood for batter y and robbery. It emerged that dangerousness seemed to have accounted for a considerable amount of variance for both crimes. While dangerousness is a legally relevant factor for sentencing recommendations and how much punishment the defendant deserved, it appear ed that dangerousness was an influential factor that also impacted guilt adjudication. This suggests that mock jurors associated perceptions of offender dangerous ness with guilt culpability. Finally, the hypothesis suggested that perc eptions of hate motivation would be significantly related to recommendations for severity of punishment for aggravated battery and robbery. As expected, the findings suggested that hate motivation impacted how much punishment the defendant deserved for both aggravated and robbery crimes. Additionally, hate motivation a ccounted for 11% and 7% of th e variation for aggravated battery and robbery respectivel y. Interestingly, however, ha te motivation only impacted sentencing for aggravated battery and accounted for 17% of the variation; no effect was observed for robbery. The non-significant finding for hate motivation’s impact on sentencing for robbery may have been rela ted to the nature of the crime and the availability of evidence. That is, mock juro rs may have perceived aggravated battery as a crime stereotypically motivated by hate. However, the robbery may have not been considered to be motivated by racial animus. Additionally, the scenario focused on evidence related to the aggrav ated battery, however there was very limited evidence in the case that suggested that r obbery took place; for instance, th ere was very little mention about robbery in the crime scenario and ther e was no indication that the stolen property

PAGE 85

78 was found in the defendant’s possession. As su ch, this weak evidence may have impacted the outcomes. The final series of hypotheses suggested that there would be no main effects observed for type of crime (hate versus nonhate) and offender-victim racial composition (Caucasian/African-American) on ratings of likelihood the defendant committed aggravated battery and robbery, how much punishment the defendant deserved, and sentence recommendations. As predicted, the 2 x 2 Factorial Multivariate Analyses revealed that there were no si gnificant main effects observe d. Therefore, this finding suggests that the type of crime alone (hate versus non-hate) and the offender-victim racial dyad alone (African-American/ Caucasian) did not impact how much punishment the defendant deserved, guilt likelihood, a nd sentencing recommendations. The final series of hypotheses also suggest ed that there would be an interaction between type of crime (hate versus non-ha te) and offender-victim racial composition (Caucasian offender/African-American victim versus African-American offender/Caucasian victim) on ratings of the likelihood the defendant committed aggravated battery and robbery, how much punishment the defendant deserved, and sentence recommendations. Sp ecifically, for those conditions labeled as hate crimes, there would be significantly higher mean s on likelihood for committing both crimes, sentence recommendations, and how much puni shment the defendant deserved when the victim was African-American and the defenda nt was Caucasian (compared to when the victim was Caucasian and the defendant wa s African-American). Conversely, for those conditions labeled as non-hate crimes, th ere would be significantly higher means on likelihood for committing both crimes, how mu ch punishment the defendant deserved,

PAGE 86

79 and sentence recommendations when the vi ctim was Caucasian and the defendant was African-American (compared to when the victim was African-American and the defendant was Caucasian). A 2 x 2 Factor ial MANOVA revealed that there was an interaction effect on ratings of likelihood that the defendant committed aggravated battery before controlling for th e covariates in the model. This interaction demonstrated that the crime label and racial dyad did interact. However, the interaction demonstrated that in the hate crime condition, the mean likelihood that the defendant committed the crime was higher when the offender was African-American and the victim was Caucasian, compared to when the offender was Caucasian and the victim was AfricanAmerican. These outcomes were not consiste nt with the direction predicted in the hypothesis for hate crimes. A plausible sugge stion to this outcom e may be related to some criticisms that have been suggested fo r hate crime legislation. Some researchers have suggested that hate crime laws ma y have an adverse affect on minority group members (Jacobs & Potter, 1997). For instan ce, African-Americans may receive harsher sentences for committing a hate crime ag ainst a member of the majority group (Caucasians) as research ha s shown a trend whereby minority group members receive harsher sentences than members of the majority groups (Sauci er et al., 2006; Gerstenfeld, 2003). The results in this study suggest that this criticism may be plausible. Conversely, the results indicated that in the non-hate crime condition, the mean likelihood that the defendant committed aggravated battery was higher when the offender was Caucasian and the victim was African-American, compared to when the offender was African-American and the victim was Ca ucasian. This outcome was also not congruent with the direction predicted in the hypothesis. A potential reason for this

PAGE 87

80 outcome could have been that students may ha ve realized that the study was exploring the potential impact of race on ju ror decision making. The student s may have been aware of known race-related imprisonment issues that suggest that African-Americans are more frequently found guilty of crimes and r eceive harsher sentences (Clear, 1994). Consequently guilt likelihood was increased in the opposite direction where Caucasians were more likely to be guilty when the victim was African-American, in comparison to the African-American defendant when the vict im was Caucasian. Interestingly, however, after controlling for offender dangerousness, witness credibility, a nd hate motivation, the interaction effect disappeare d. Therefore, the significant interaction between type of crimes (hate/non-hate) and offender-victim racial composition (AfricanAmerican/Caucasian) on ratings of guilt likelihood may have been a function of the covariates indicated above. Thus, prior research that has suggested differences in adjudication and sentencing in hate crimes ma y have been inaccurate as the findings may have been a function of other po tentially covarying factors. The series of 2 x 2 Factorial MANCOVAs revealed that after controlling for dangerousness, witness credib ility, and hate motivation, th ere were no observed main effects of type of crime and offender-victim racial composition, and there were no interaction effects between th ese two variables on ratings of likelihood the defendant committed aggravated battery and robbery, how much punishment the defendant deserved, and sentencing recommendations. The results of the main effects were congruent with the hypothesis in this study; however the interac tion effects observed were not. While the hypotheses in this st udy suggested significant differences across groups because of the victim-offender ra cial composition and hate crime label

PAGE 88

81 manipulation, this was not supported with thes e results, and was not congruent with prior hate crime research studies (Craig et al ., 1999; Saucier et al., 2006; Gerstenfeld, 2003; Marcus-Newhall et al., 2002). Pr ior researchers have suggested that race and the hate crime manipulation influenced adjudication a nd sentencing. However, the important note to consider is that prior researchers have not controlled for potential covarying factors that influence these outcomes. As such, th e significant results found in prior research may have essentially been a function of the c ovarying factors, not th e actual race or hate crime manipulation. The current study focu sed on controlling for potential covarying factors that have been sugge sted to influence adjudicati on and sentencing. The main effect effects and interactions did not imp act the outcomes; rather, it appeared that offender dangerousness and hate motivation were influential factors in this case. Witness credibility remained constant across the c onditions as there was no significant variation observed, suggesting that witness credibility di d not influence mock jurors perceptions of adjudication and sentencing depending on wh ich condition they were assigned to. Although, it is important to note that danger ousness did influence guilt likelihood, this factor should not be a legally relevant factor considered by jurors in assessing guilt. Since we found that mock jurors in this study focused on offender dangerousness and hate motivation, there was further interest to determine whether these factors differed across the conditions. There was a possibility that perhap s calling a crime a hate crime alters perceptions of offende r dangerousness or perceptions of hate motivation. Or the race of the victim impacts whether the crime is perceived as being motivated by hate. While this hypothesis was not suggested in th is study, to further analyze the results, a One-Way ANOVA was computed to determin e mean differences for dangerousness and

PAGE 89

82 perceived hate motivation across the conditions. The results showed that perceptions of dangerousness did not vary across the conditi ons. However, the results showed that mock jurors were more likely to believe th at the African-American victim was targeted because of hate motivation when the defendant was Caucasian in the hate crime condition, in comparison to when the vict im was Caucasian and the defendant was African-American in the non-hate crime conditi on. Therefore, this suggests that the victim’s race and calling the crime a hate cr ime influenced mock juror’s perception of hate motivation. This is congruent with the notion that there are st ereotypes about what a hate crime is (Craig et al., 1999; Saucier et al., 2006; Gerstenfeld, 2003; Marcus-Newhall et al., 2002). Specifically, it a ppears that the stereotype of a hate crime is one in which there is an African-American victim and a Caucasian offender. While interesting results emerged in th is study, the results were not congruent with prior hate crime research. Several reasons may explain the outcomes observed in the current study. Perhaps the inconsistent re sults obtained in the study were impacted by specifically labeling crimes as hate crimes, or the inclusion of multiple victim-offender racial dyads. Other research has not typically created such unique experimental conditions, and those in turn may have influen ced the results. Perhaps it was something about they way the crime was described in the trial scenario that impacted the results. These are all possibilities; however it remains unclear as to why they seem contrary to prior research. Another consideration for why these result s emerged may have been related to the sample. The study was selected from underg raduate criminology students. Criminology classes focus on issues related to extralegal factors (such as race), imprisonment, and

PAGE 90

83 other legal issues. Such factors may have play ed a role in mock juror’s considerations for likelihood of guilt, how much punishment the defendant deserved, and sentence recommendations because of the sensitivity regarding shockingly high imprisonment rates in the last 30 years (Clear 1994). As a result, mock juro rs in this study sample may have been less likely to adjudicate the de fendants guilty, less like ly to believe they deserved punishment, and decreased recommen ded sentences in comparison to a sample of non-criminology students or community samp les. This may be indicative of prior studies that have found signi ficant results related to increased adjudication and sentencing for Caucasian perpetrators for hate crimes in comparison to African-American perpetrators as the samples used were non-criminology student samples, such as psychology student samples or community samp les (Craig et al., 1999 ; Saucier et al., 2006; Gerstenfeld, 2003; Marcus -Newhall et al., 2002). A final consideration may be that the evidence presented for robbery negatively impacted the outcomes in this study. The cr ime scenario focused on evidence related to aggravated battery. There was very limited information provided for the robbery. In particular, no information was provided that indicated whether belongings were found in the defendant’s possession. Given that the primar y factor related to ju rors’ decision is the strength of evidence (Sarge nt & Bradfield, 2004), and the evidence regarding burglary was admittedly weak, the nonsignificant findings regarding robbery may have been appropriate. In summary, the current study revealed so me very interesting findings that added to existing literature. Essentially, what this body of research previ ously suggested prior to this study was that race was a factor th at influenced adjudication and sentencing. In

PAGE 91

84 race and jury studies, prior researchers have suggested that African-Americans tend to be found guilty more frequently and receive hars her sentences. However, when race is made salient, mock jurors tend to pay attention to legally relevant details of the case. In hate crime and jury research, when race is ma de salient, prior researchers have suggested that mock jurors tend to be more punitive towa rds Caucasian perpetrators of hate crimes when the victim is African-American. What had not yet been examined prior to this study was whether these patterns hold when cova riates that may modify the findings are controlled for. For the purposes of this st udy, hate motivation (which was a combination of whether the victim was targeted because of race and the defendant’s perceived prejudice), witness credibility (police a nd victim) and dangerousness (which was a combination of the defendant’s perceived a ggressiveness and likelihood of future crime) were controlled for, as prior research has suggested that these factors influence adjudication and sentencing. The results of this study found no differences in mock juror’s decisions about how much punishment the defenda nt deserved, and sentence recommendations before and after holding all the covariates consta nt. However, there was a significant interaction between type of crime and offender-victim racial composition observed on ratings of guilt lik elihood for aggravated battery only (nonsignificant for robbery) before controlling for the covariates in the model. Conversely, after controlling for offender dangerousness, witness credibility, and hate motivation the interaction effect disappeare d. Thus, it appears that wh ile prior researchers have suggested that race is a fact or, the present study suggests that mock jurors are not influenced by race. This outcome in the study is a positive and important outcome to note. In fact, the influential factors on guilt adjunction, how much punishment the

PAGE 92

85 defendant deserved, and sent encing appeared to be the covarying factors such as dangerousness and hate motivation. Some flaws were identified in this study. First and foremost, some sampling issues were noted. The sa mple was not diverse, as 66.7% of mock jurors were Caucasian. There were less than 25 particip ants in each condition, indicating that the sample size was small. The sample selected was comprised of college students. While numerous researchers use college student samples, it decreases external validity (Sommers & Adekanmbi, 2008). Sampling is an important component for consideration for future research. Specifically, research ers should focus on more diverse and larger sample sizes. Since the African-American popul ation in the United States is lower than the Caucasian population, it is likely that a diverse sample will be difficult to obtain. Therefore, future researchers should focus on obtaining a survey that is stratified to include more diverse samples. Additionally, samples should be selected from an actual jury pool in order to incr ease external validity. There is very limited research in the area of hate crimes and jury decision making. Thus, it is necessary to conti nue conducting further studies to examine juror’s perceptions of hate crimes to increase knowledge in this area. One consideration for future research involves strength of presented evidence. Prior researchers have noted differences in adjudication and sentencing depending on eviden ce strength (Sargent & Bradfield, 2004). In the current study, the percentage of guilty adjudications was approximately 50%. This suggests that the evidence was ambiguous as intended. However, a more sophisticated design could include varying levels of st rength of evidence, an approach future researchers should consider.

PAGE 93

86 Despite the limitations, this study adds to the literature as key covarying factors were identified, such as offender dangerous ness and hate motivation. These covariates were influential on ratings of guilt adjudicat ion, perceptions of how much punishment the defendant deserved, and sentence recommenda tions. Because prior studies have not taken into account such factors, some of the findings stemming from them may be misspecified. We encourage future efforts to examine these and other potential covariates, as they appear to be important. To the extent that the current findings are replicated, it may reveal that race is less influential than previously thought. This would be an encouraging finding as jurors are ch arged with carrying out their duties in an impartial, and thus racially neutral, manner.

PAGE 94

87 References Abshire, J., & Bornstein, B. H. (2003). Juror Sensitivity to the Cross-Race Effect. Law and Human Behavior, 27 (5), 471-480. Aldrich, M. Progressive Economists and Scientific Racism: Walter Willcox and Black Americans, 1895-1910 Phylon (1960-) 40 (1),1-14. Almendarez-Torres v. United States (1998). 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219. Apel, D. (2004). Imagery of lynching : black men, white women, and the mob. New Brunswick, N.J.: London : Rutgers University Press. Apprendi v. New Jersey ( 2000). 530 U.S. 446, 120 S.Ct. 2348. Austin, J., & Irwin, J. (2000). It’s About Time; Americ a’s Imprisonment Binge. California: Thompson Learning. Barkan, S. E., & Cohn, S. F. (2005). Why Wh ites Favor Spending More Money to Fight Crime: The Role of Racial Prejudice. Social Problems, 52 (2), 300-314. Beck, E. M., & Tolnay, S. E. (1990). The Killin g Fields of the Deep South: The Market for Cotton and the Lynching of Blacks, 1882-1930. American Sociological Review 55 (4), 526-539. Berlin, I. (2003). Generations of captivity: a hist ory of African-American slaves Cambridge, Mass. : Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531.

PAGE 95

88 Bonilla-Silva, E. White supremacy and racism in the post-civil rights era. Boulder, Colo.: L. Rienner. Bornstein, B. H., (1999). The Ecological Validity of Jury Simulations: Is the Jury Still Out? Law and Human Behavior, 23 (1), 75-91. Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-Group Bias in th e Minimal Intergroup Situation: A CognitiveMotivational Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86 (2), 307-324. Bureau of Justice Statistics (2007). Corrections Statistics. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Clear, T., (1994). Harm in American Penology. New York: Pocket Books. Cogan, J. (2002). Hate Crime as a Crim e Category Worthy of Policy Attention. American Behavioral Scientist, 46 (1), 173-185 Cohen, J., (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin 112 (1) 155-159 Craig, K. M. (1999). Retaliation, Fear, or Rage : An Investigation of African American and White Reactions to Racist Hate Crimes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14 (2), 138-151. Craig, K. M., & Waldo, C. R. (1996). “S o, What’s a Hate Crime Anyway?” Young Adults’ Perceptions of Hate Crim es, Victims, and Perpetrators. Law and Human Behavior, 20 (2), 113-129. Democracy Now. (2007, September 21). The Jena Six Story: A Look at the Origins of the Case. Retrieved September 30, 2007, from the World Wide Web: http://www.democracynow.org/ar ticle.pl?sid=07/09/21/158237 Feagin, J. R., & Sikes, M. P. Living with racism : the Bl ack middle-class experience. Boston: Beacon Press.

PAGE 96

89 Florida Statute § 775.085. (Supp 1998). Franklin, J. H., & Moss, A. A. (1994). From slavery to freedom: A history of African Americans New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Fredrickson, G. M. (2002). Racism: a short history. Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press. Gerstenfeld, P. B. (2003). Juror Deci sion Making in Hate Crime Cases. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 14 (2), 193-213. Green, D. P. et al., (1998). Defended Neighbor hoods, Integration, and Racially Motivated Crime. American Journal of Sociology, 104 (2), 372-403. Hacker, A. (1992). Two Nations, Black and White, Separate, Hostile, Unequal. T Nations New York: Scribners. Hagan, J. (1974). Extra-Legal Factors and Cr iminal Sentencing: An Assessment of a Sociological Viewpoint. Law and Society Review, 8 (3), 357-384. Harris, T. (1984). Exorcising blackness : historical and literary lynching and burning rituals Bloomington, Ind. : Indian a University Press. Harris v. United States (2002) 536 U.S. 545, 122 S.Ct. 2406. Herek, G. M. (1989). Hate Crimes Against Lesbians and Gay Men. American Psychologist, 44 (6), 948-955. Hurwitz, J., & Peffley, M. (1997). Public Per ceptions of Race and Crime: The Role of Racal Stereotypes. American Journal of Political Science, 41 (2), 375-401. Hymes, R.W. et al. (1993). Acquaintance Race : The effect of race of defendant and race of victim on white juror decisions. Journal of Social Psychology, 144, 627-634.

PAGE 97

90 Jacobs, J. B., & Potter, K. A. (1997). Hate Crimes: A Critical Perspective. Crime and Justice, 22 (1), 1-50. Jones v. United States (1999). 526 U.S. 227, 119 S.Ct. 1215. Kemmelmeier, M. (2005). The Effects of Race and Social Dominance Orientation in Simulated Juror Decision Making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35 (5), 1030-1045. Levin, J., & McDevitt, J. (1993). Hate Crimes. The rising tide of bigotry and bloodshed. New York: Plenum Press. Lewis, D. L. (2000). W.E.B. DuBois--the fight for e quality and the American century, 1919-1963. Publisher: New York : H. Holt. Lizotte, A., J. (1978). Extra-Legal Factors in Chicago’s Criminal Courts: Testing the Conflict Model of Criminal Justice. Social Problems, 25 (5), 564-580. Marcus-Newhall, A. et al., (2002) Perceptions of Hate Crime Perpetrators and Victims as Influenced by Race, Political Orientation, and Peer Group. American Behavioral Scientist, 46 (1), 108-135. Mazzella, R., & Feingold, A. (1994). The e ffects of physical attractiveness, race, socioeconomic status, and gender of de fendants and victims of judgments of mock jurors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 3151344. McDevitt, et al., (2000). Improving the quality and accuracy of bias crime statistics nationally. Washington DC: U.S. De partment of Justice. McWhorter; D. (2001). Carry me home: Birmingham, Al abama, the climactic battle of the civil rights revolution. Publisher: New York : Simon & Schuster.

PAGE 98

91 Nolan, J. J. et al., (2002). The Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990. American Behavioral Scientist, 46 (1), 136-153. Office of Attorney General Bill McCollum (1995). Hate Crimes in Florida: January 1, 2006 – December 31, 2006. Attorney General Bill McCollum, Florida. Peffley, M. et al., (1997). Racial Stereotypes and Whites’ Politic al Views of Blacks in the Context of Welfare and Crime. American Journal of Political Science, 41 (1), 3060. Petrosino, C. (1999). Connecting the Past to the Future: Hate Crime in America. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 15 (1), 22-47. Perlmutter, P. A. (1991). Divided we fall : a history of ethic, religious, and racial prejudice in America Iowa State University Press. Prooijen, J. (2006). Retributive Reactions to Suspected Offenders : The Importance of Social Categorizations and Guilt Probability. Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 32 (6), 715-726. Quillian, L., & Pager, D. (2001). Black Neighbors, Higher Crime? The Role of Racial Stereotypes in Evaluatio ns of Neighborhood Crime. American Journal of Sociology, 107 (3), 717-767. Reskin, B. F. & Fisher, C. A. (1986). The Im pact of Evidence and Extralegal Factors in Jurors’ Decisions. Law and Society, 20 (3), 423-438. Rothbart, M., & Oliver, J. (1993). “Race, Politics, and the American Dilemma.” Prejudice, Politics, and the American Dilemma, ed. Paul Sniderman, Philip Tetlock, and Edward Carmines. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

PAGE 99

92 Saucier, D. A. et al., (2006). Effects of Victims’ Characteristics on Attitudes Toward Hate Crimes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21 (7), 890-909. Sargent, M. J., & Bradfield, A. L. (2004). R ace and Information Processing in Criminal Trials: Does the Defendant’s Race A ffect How the Facts Are Evaluated? Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 30 (8), 995-1008. Sears, D. O., (1986). College Sophomores in the Laboratory: Influences of a Narrow Data Base on Social Psychol ogy’s View of Human Nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (3), 515-530. Sommers, S. R., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2003). How much do we really know about race and juries? A review of social science theory and research. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 78, 997-1031. Sommers, S. R., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2000). R ace in the Courtroom: Perceptions of Guilt and Dispositional Attributions. Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 26 (11), 1367-1379 Soule, S. A. (1992). Populism and Black Lynching in Georgia, 1890-1900. Social Forces, 71 (2), 431-449. Sommers, Samuel R., and Omoniyi O. Adekanmbi. (2008). Race and Juries: An Experimental Psychology Perspective. In Gregory S. Parks, Shayne Jones, and Jonathan W. Cardi (Eds.), Critical race realism: Intersections of psychology, race, and law. New York: The New Press (pp.78-93). Tolnay, S. E., & Beck, E. M. (1992). Raci al Violence and Black Migration in the American South, 1910-1930. American Sociological Review, 57 (1), 103-116.

PAGE 100

93 Torres, S. (1999). Hate Crimes Against African Americans. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 15 (1), 48-63. United States Congress Senate Committ ee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution (1996). The Hate Crimes Statistics Act [microform] : hearing before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Third Congress, second session, on the implementation and progress of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act (Public law 101275) ... June 28, 1994. Washington : U.S. G.P.O. : For sale by the U.S. G.P.O., Supt. of Docs., Congressional Sales Office, 1996. United States v. Booker (2005) 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738. Waldrep, C, (2000). War of Words. The C ontroversy over the Definition of Lynching (1899-1940). The Journal of Southern History, 66 (1), 75-100. Washington, B. T. (1899). The future of the American Negro. New York, Negro Universities Press [1969, 1899]. Williams, J. (1987). Eyes on the prize: America's civil rights years, 1954-1965. Publisher: New York, NY : Viking. Wisconsin v. Mitchell. 113 S.Ct. F2194 (1993). Zebrowitz, L. A., & McDonald S. M., (1991) The Impact of Litigants’ Baby-Facedness and Attractiveness on Adjudicati on in Small Claims Court. Law and Human Behavior, 115 (6), 603-623.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 002001135
003 fts
005 20090429123758.0
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 090429s2008 flu s 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0002602
035
(OCoLC)319620619
040
FHM
c FHM
049
FHMM
090
HV6025 (Online)
1 100
Mudimu, Vimbai.
0 245
Hate crimes and jury decision making :
b an exploratory study of underlying motivations of how mock jurors are influenced by extralegal factors
h [electronic resource] /
by Vimbai Mudimu.
260
[Tampa, Fla] :
University of South Florida,
2008.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 93 pages.
502
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2008.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
520
ABSTRACT: Statistics show that hate crimes continue to occur in United States, inciting fear and intimidation in minority communities (Petrosino, 1999; Torres, 1999; Saucier et al., 2006; Nolan et al., 2002; Jacobs & Potter, 1997). Although hate crime legislation has been passed, very little research has assessed what impact it has. This is particularly true for jury decision making. The aim of this study was to examine the main effects of type of crime (hate versus non-hate), offender-victim racial composition (African-American/Caucasian), and the interaction between these two variables on ratings of guilt likelihood, deserved punishment, and sentence recommendations after controlling for offender dangerousness, witness credibility, and hate motivation. The first hypothesis assumed that differences in guilt and hate crime adjudications would emerge across the experimental conditions.The second hypothesis indicated that dangerousness, and hate motivation would exert significant influence on deserved punishment and sentence recommendations; while witness credibility would exert influence on guilt adjudication. The third and fourth hypothesis stated that there would be no main effects of type of crime (hate versus non-hate) and offender-victim racial composition (African-American/Caucasian) on ratings of guilt likelihood, deserved punishment, and sentence recommendations. The fifth hypothesis suggested that there would be interaction effects between type of crime and offender-victim racial composition on ratings of guilt likelihood, deserved punishment, and recommended sentence after controlling for dangerousness, hate motivation, and witness credibility.Results indicated that there were no main effects for type of crime, offender-victim racial composition, or the interaction between these two variables on ratings of guilt likelihood, deserved punishment, and sentence recommendations. There was a significant interaction effect on ratings of guilt likelihood for aggravated battery; however this interaction disappeared after controlling for offender dangerousness, witness credibility, and hate motivation. Dangerousness and hate motivation appeared to exert influence on the study outcomes. Overall, the findings were not congruent with prior research. It appeared that the covarying factors seemed to exert significant influence on the study outcomes; thus further study is warranted.
538
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
590
Advisor: Shayne Jones, Ph.D.
653
Covariates
Perceptions
Adjudication
Sentencing
Stereotypes
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Criminology
Masters.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.2602